FINDING 2024-008 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425C, 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425C200018, S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-004. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. With respect to federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal awards. Internal control is not one event or circumstance, but a dynamic and iterative process. The internal control process is based on fundamental principles that operate as a whole but are best understood when analyzed individually. The fundamental principles are related to five components of internal control which are as follows: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. If a component is not effective, or the components are not operating together in an integrated manner, then an internal control system cannot be effective. Deficiencies as noted below were identified in the risk assessment, monitoring, and control activities components. Risk Assessment The School Corporation has not established a formal risk assessment process. There is no documented risk assessment policy, nor is there evidence of periodic risk identification, analysis, or evaluation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Monitoring The School Corporation did not conduct ongoing or periodic reviews to ensure that internal controls were operating as intended and to identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the School Corporation did not have a process to follow up on corrective actions written as a response to audit findings. Control Activities The School Corporation was required to submit annual data reports to the Indiana Department of Education via JotForm, a form/report builder. Data to be submitted included, but was not limited to, current period expenditures, prior period expenditures, and key line items such as "Number of Specific Positions Supported with ESSER Funds," "Allocation of ESSER funds . . . ," "LEA expenditures by ESSER Subgrant fund . . . ," and "Full-Time Equivalency Positions." As part of sound management of the federal award, the School Corporation was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. During the audit period, the School Corporation submitted one ESSER I report, two ESSER II reports, two ESSER III reports, and one ARP HCY II Report, for a total of six reports. There was no evidence of an oversight, review, or approval process to prevent, or detect and correct, errors prior to submission. All six reports were selected for testing. Four of the reports were not supported by the School Corporation's records, and their accuracy and completeness could not be verified. The following errors were identified: The ESSER II, Year 2 and Year 3 reports, which covered the periods of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, and July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, respectively, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. For both reports, the supplies line item could not be traced to the School Corporation's records. For ESSER II, Year 3, the School Corporation reported Other Purchased Services, but the School Corporation's supporting documentation did not include any items that would be classified as such. The ESSER III, Year 2 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported the purchase of Chromebooks as Purchased Property Services, which was not the appropriate classification for the expenditure. The ESSER III, Year 3 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported amounts related to Purchased Property Services and Personnel Services - Salaries that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program. . . ." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Cause Management of the School Corporation had not taken steps to design and implement policies and procedures to assess risks facing the School Corporation or to establish and operate monitoring activities that monitor the internal control system. Additionally, the School Corporation did not act upon its corrective action plan submitted in response to the same finding included in the prior audit and did not take further steps to ensure compliance. Effect As a result of the five components of internal control not being adequately designed and implemented, the internal control system cannot be effective. Thus, general risks or specific risks from fraud and significant changes could negatively impact the School Corporation, identified internal control deficiencies could continue, and unidentified flaws within the internal control system could exist. Additionally, due to a lack of review and segregation of duties, the School Corporation submitted ESSER II and ESSER III reports that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. As a result, material noncompliance occurred and remained undetected. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to risk assessment and monitoring. Additionally, we recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure all reports submitted are accurate. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-008 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425C, 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425C200018, S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-004. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. With respect to federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal awards. Internal control is not one event or circumstance, but a dynamic and iterative process. The internal control process is based on fundamental principles that operate as a whole but are best understood when analyzed individually. The fundamental principles are related to five components of internal control which are as follows: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. If a component is not effective, or the components are not operating together in an integrated manner, then an internal control system cannot be effective. Deficiencies as noted below were identified in the risk assessment, monitoring, and control activities components. Risk Assessment The School Corporation has not established a formal risk assessment process. There is no documented risk assessment policy, nor is there evidence of periodic risk identification, analysis, or evaluation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Monitoring The School Corporation did not conduct ongoing or periodic reviews to ensure that internal controls were operating as intended and to identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the School Corporation did not have a process to follow up on corrective actions written as a response to audit findings. Control Activities The School Corporation was required to submit annual data reports to the Indiana Department of Education via JotForm, a form/report builder. Data to be submitted included, but was not limited to, current period expenditures, prior period expenditures, and key line items such as "Number of Specific Positions Supported with ESSER Funds," "Allocation of ESSER funds . . . ," "LEA expenditures by ESSER Subgrant fund . . . ," and "Full-Time Equivalency Positions." As part of sound management of the federal award, the School Corporation was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. During the audit period, the School Corporation submitted one ESSER I report, two ESSER II reports, two ESSER III reports, and one ARP HCY II Report, for a total of six reports. There was no evidence of an oversight, review, or approval process to prevent, or detect and correct, errors prior to submission. All six reports were selected for testing. Four of the reports were not supported by the School Corporation's records, and their accuracy and completeness could not be verified. The following errors were identified: The ESSER II, Year 2 and Year 3 reports, which covered the periods of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, and July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, respectively, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. For both reports, the supplies line item could not be traced to the School Corporation's records. For ESSER II, Year 3, the School Corporation reported Other Purchased Services, but the School Corporation's supporting documentation did not include any items that would be classified as such. The ESSER III, Year 2 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported the purchase of Chromebooks as Purchased Property Services, which was not the appropriate classification for the expenditure. The ESSER III, Year 3 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported amounts related to Purchased Property Services and Personnel Services - Salaries that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program. . . ." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Cause Management of the School Corporation had not taken steps to design and implement policies and procedures to assess risks facing the School Corporation or to establish and operate monitoring activities that monitor the internal control system. Additionally, the School Corporation did not act upon its corrective action plan submitted in response to the same finding included in the prior audit and did not take further steps to ensure compliance. Effect As a result of the five components of internal control not being adequately designed and implemented, the internal control system cannot be effective. Thus, general risks or specific risks from fraud and significant changes could negatively impact the School Corporation, identified internal control deficiencies could continue, and unidentified flaws within the internal control system could exist. Additionally, due to a lack of review and segregation of duties, the School Corporation submitted ESSER II and ESSER III reports that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. As a result, material noncompliance occurred and remained undetected. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to risk assessment and monitoring. Additionally, we recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure all reports submitted are accurate. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-008 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425C, 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425C200018, S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-004. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved. With respect to federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal awards. Internal control is not one event or circumstance, but a dynamic and iterative process. The internal control process is based on fundamental principles that operate as a whole but are best understood when analyzed individually. The fundamental principles are related to five components of internal control which are as follows: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. If a component is not effective, or the components are not operating together in an integrated manner, then an internal control system cannot be effective. Deficiencies as noted below were identified in the risk assessment, monitoring, and control activities components. Risk Assessment The School Corporation has not established a formal risk assessment process. There is no documented risk assessment policy, nor is there evidence of periodic risk identification, analysis, or evaluation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Monitoring The School Corporation did not conduct ongoing or periodic reviews to ensure that internal controls were operating as intended and to identify areas for improvement. Furthermore, the School Corporation did not have a process to follow up on corrective actions written as a response to audit findings. Control Activities The School Corporation was required to submit annual data reports to the Indiana Department of Education via JotForm, a form/report builder. Data to be submitted included, but was not limited to, current period expenditures, prior period expenditures, and key line items such as "Number of Specific Positions Supported with ESSER Funds," "Allocation of ESSER funds . . . ," "LEA expenditures by ESSER Subgrant fund . . . ," and "Full-Time Equivalency Positions." As part of sound management of the federal award, the School Corporation was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. During the audit period, the School Corporation submitted one ESSER I report, two ESSER II reports, two ESSER III reports, and one ARP HCY II Report, for a total of six reports. There was no evidence of an oversight, review, or approval process to prevent, or detect and correct, errors prior to submission. All six reports were selected for testing. Four of the reports were not supported by the School Corporation's records, and their accuracy and completeness could not be verified. The following errors were identified: The ESSER II, Year 2 and Year 3 reports, which covered the periods of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, and July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, respectively, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. For both reports, the supplies line item could not be traced to the School Corporation's records. For ESSER II, Year 3, the School Corporation reported Other Purchased Services, but the School Corporation's supporting documentation did not include any items that would be classified as such. The ESSER III, Year 2 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported the purchase of Chromebooks as Purchased Property Services, which was not the appropriate classification for the expenditure. The ESSER III, Year 3 report, which covered the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, Key Line Items were not able to be traced to supporting documentation. The School Corporation reported amounts related to Purchased Property Services and Personnel Services - Salaries that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program. . . ." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Cause Management of the School Corporation had not taken steps to design and implement policies and procedures to assess risks facing the School Corporation or to establish and operate monitoring activities that monitor the internal control system. Additionally, the School Corporation did not act upon its corrective action plan submitted in response to the same finding included in the prior audit and did not take further steps to ensure compliance. Effect As a result of the five components of internal control not being adequately designed and implemented, the internal control system cannot be effective. Thus, general risks or specific risks from fraud and significant changes could negatively impact the School Corporation, identified internal control deficiencies could continue, and unidentified flaws within the internal control system could exist. Additionally, due to a lack of review and segregation of duties, the School Corporation submitted ESSER II and ESSER III reports that were not supported by the School Corporation's records. As a result, material noncompliance occurred and remained undetected. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 CANNELTON CITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to risk assessment and monitoring. Additionally, we recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure all reports submitted are accurate. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management implemented a review control over the annual data reports, however, it was not sufficient enough to detect and prevent errors in annual data reports submitted to the Indiana Department of Education. Effect: Annual data reports submitted during the audit period to the Indiana Department of Education contained material errors compared to underlying transaction detail for the period reported. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I amount reported on the Year 3 report ($86,004) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($196,436) for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. We also noted that the ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($0 and $1,684,755, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,391,963 and $4,330,649, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. See Finding 2022-003 in the prior audit report. Recommendation: We recommend management review internal controls over the review of annual data reports to ensure the data to be submitted agrees to underlying transaction detail or other supporting documentation prior to the submission of the annual data report. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management implemented a review control over the annual data reports, however, it was not sufficient enough to detect and prevent errors in annual data reports submitted to the Indiana Department of Education. Effect: Annual data reports submitted during the audit period to the Indiana Department of Education contained material errors compared to underlying transaction detail for the period reported. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I amount reported on the Year 3 report ($86,004) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($196,436) for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. We also noted that the ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($0 and $1,684,755, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,391,963 and $4,330,649, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. See Finding 2022-003 in the prior audit report. Recommendation: We recommend management review internal controls over the review of annual data reports to ensure the data to be submitted agrees to underlying transaction detail or other supporting documentation prior to the submission of the annual data report. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management implemented a review control over the annual data reports, however, it was not sufficient enough to detect and prevent errors in annual data reports submitted to the Indiana Department of Education. Effect: Annual data reports submitted during the audit period to the Indiana Department of Education contained material errors compared to underlying transaction detail for the period reported. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I amount reported on the Year 3 report ($86,004) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($196,436) for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. We also noted that the ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($0 and $1,684,755, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,391,963 and $4,330,649, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. See Finding 2022-003 in the prior audit report. Recommendation: We recommend management review internal controls over the review of annual data reports to ensure the data to be submitted agrees to underlying transaction detail or other supporting documentation prior to the submission of the annual data report. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management implemented a review control over the annual data reports, however, it was not sufficient enough to detect and prevent errors in annual data reports submitted to the Indiana Department of Education. Effect: Annual data reports submitted during the audit period to the Indiana Department of Education contained material errors compared to underlying transaction detail for the period reported. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I amount reported on the Year 3 report ($86,004) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($196,436) for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. We also noted that the ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($0 and $1,684,755, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,391,963 and $4,330,649, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. See Finding 2022-003 in the prior audit report. Recommendation: We recommend management review internal controls over the review of annual data reports to ensure the data to be submitted agrees to underlying transaction detail or other supporting documentation prior to the submission of the annual data report. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Program: Assistance Listing 84.010A - Title I Grants To Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listing: 84.027/84.027X/84.173/84.173X – Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.425D– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II) Assistance Listing: 84.425U– Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) Repeat Finding: Yes Criteria: 2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.303 outline key requirements for non-federal entities managing federal awards. Section 200.302 mandates that a financial management system be in place to prepare reports as required by both general and program-specific terms and conditions. It also requires tracing funds to a level of expenditure that demonstrates compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award, including comparing expenditures with the budget for each federal award. Section 200.303 requires non-federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards, ensuring reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal laws, regulations, and the award's terms and conditions. Condition: The District’s internal controls over budgeting for federal grants are insufficient to ensure compliance with federal regulations and to stay within the budgetary limits established by the federal awards, as specified in the Mississippi Comprehensive Automated Performance-based System (MCAPS), administered through the Mississippi Department of Education. Specifically, the District has not adequately adhered to budgeting restraints outlined for its federal grants. Our audit procedures identified the following instances where actual expenditures appear to exceed the budgeted amounts: Six-line items in the ARP ESSER grant, totaling $115,645.51. Five-line items in the ESSER II grant, totaling $31,135.42 Three-line items in the Special Education IDEA Part B grant, totaling $9,474.44. One-line item in the Title I, Part A grant, totaling $8,640.88. Context/ Perspective: This finding is a result of our budget to actual comparisons for federal grant purposes of major programs and the conditions cited appear to be a systematic issue. Cause: The District did not properly monitor budget limits established in MCAPS to ensure that budgeting requirements were fulfilled. Effect: Failure to remain within established budget limits in MCAPS could affect future eligibility for federal award programs or result in a loss or misappropriation of public assets. Questioned Costs: $146,780.93 (ESSER II and ARP ESSER) Recommendation: The District should establish additional internal controls to ensure that it remains within budget limits for each grant maintained in MCAPS. Views of Responsible Officials: The Auditee’s Corrective Action Plan lists the District’s response to the findings.
Finding Reference 2024-005 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Agency: Central Office of Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency of Puerto Rico (COR3) Program: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disaster) (ALN 97.036) Compliance Requirement: Reporting (L) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls (SD), Instance of Noncompliance (NC) This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2023-005. Statement of Condition In our Reporting Test, we evaluated the Quarterly Progress Reports of a total of twelve (12) projects for two quarters of fiscal year 2023-2024. During our audit procedures, we noted that the reports did not agree with the accounting and project records. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (a) states that the state’s and the other non-Federal entity’s financial management system, 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. Also, 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (2) states that 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 set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. Cause of Condition The Municipality accounting controls and procedures fail to ensure accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial results of federal assisted activities. Effect of Condition The expenses reported in the Quarterly Progress Reports do not agree with the accounting records. Recommendation We recommend Program Administrators reconcile the differences between the quarterly report and the accounting records before the submission of the next submission to the pass-through entity. Questioned Cost None. Prior Year Finding Yes. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2023-005. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action We concur with the finding. We understand that only two (2) reports did not agree with the accounting records. We have consultants that are responsible for the preparation of these reports. Instructions were given to the consultants in order to correct the reports that do not agree with the accounting records. There was a misunderstanding with the reports, in which the past-through entity instructed that purchase orders and expenditures incurred should be reported. As subsequently clarified, only the expenditures incurred should be reported. Implementation Date: June 30, 2025 Responsible Person: Carmen López Interim Finance Director
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 12.401 – National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects – Cash Management & Reporting Grant Number & Year: Appendices – W91243-22-2-1001, FFY 2022; W91243-23-2-1001, FFY 2023; W91243-24-2-1001, FFY 2024; W91243-24-2-1021, FFY 2024; W91243-24-2-1024, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Defense Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1128.100 and 2 CFR § 1128.200 (January 1, 2024), the Department of Defense adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at 2 CFR parts 200.302, 200.303, and 200.305. Per 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) requires financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Title 2 CFR § 200.305(a) (January 1, 2024) states, in part, “For states, payments are governed by Treasury-State Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA) agreements and default procedures codified at 31 CFR part 205 . . . .” National Guard Policy (NG Policy) 5-1, National Guard Grants and Cooperative Agreements, Section 11-5, Advance Payment Method, Section (5), states, in part, “[T]he grantee agrees to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and their disbursement by the State. (no more than 45 days).” Grants and agreements Policy Letter (GCAPL) 20-02 AQ-A Policy (February 4, 2020) turned NGR 5-1 into NG Policy 5-1. It generally maintained the principles and operational aspects of NGR 5-1, except as provisions of the document were adjusted in the AQ-A Policy. The AQ-A Policy did not make any changes to the 45-day requirement found in NGR 5-1. The instructions for OMB Standard Form 270 (REV. 1/2016) include the following for line 11a: Enter program outlays to date (net of refunds, rebates, and discounts), in the appropriate columns. For requests prepared on a cash basis, outlays are the sum of actual cash disbursements for goods and services, the amount of indirect expenses charged, the value of in- kind contributions applied, and the amount of cash advances and payments made to subcontractors and subrecipients. A good internal control plan would include procedures to ensure the time between the drawdown of Federal funds and disbursements are minimized and in compliance with National Guard regulations. Condition: The Agency was not in compliance with the Federal cash management requirements during the fiscal year and did not properly report program outlays on the OMB Standard Form (SF) 270. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. Repeat Finding: 2023-057 Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested five drawdowns of Federal funds to support the Agency’s operations. We tested to determine whether the Agency had expended the cumulative amounts drawn down for the awards tested within the required timeframe and noted the following: • Three drawdowns were not in compliance with NG Policy 5-1. Cumulative drawdowns for two of the draws tested were expended 49 and 62 days after the drawdown of Federal funds. Cumulative draws for the other draw tested had yet to be fully expended as of January 7, 2025. The table below provides a summary of the three draws: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • For five of five SF-270s tested, the Agency did not properly report total program outlays on the OMB SF-270 report. The Agency reported the total drawdowns for the program to date, rather than actual cash disbursements, as total program outlays. The variance between what was reported and what should have been reported ranged from an underreporting of $265,642 to an overreporting of $660,608, with a net total overreporting of expenditures by $1,090,090 for the five reports tested. Cause: Inadequate procedures for estimating fund needs for the upcoming month. Regarding SF-270 reporting, the Agency has stated it agrees with the finding; however, it has yet to implement corrective action. Effect: The Agency is not in compliance with Federal cash management and reporting requirements, which could result in sanctions. Additionally, there is an increased risk for the loss of Federal funding. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency ensure the amount of time between the Federal draw and the disbursement of funds by the State is minimized and in compliance with National Guard requirements. We also recommend the Agency report total program outlays in compliance with Federal requirements. Management Response: The Agency agrees with the finding. The drawdown timeline is a partial result of the variances in federal reimbursement functionalities and the advance state requirement function. The agency has reduced the Average # of Days to spend Total Draws by 23 for those draws in which drawdown timing was reported, indicating a general improvement over the prior year finding.
Program: AL 84.126 – Rehabilitation Services Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States – Reporting Grant Number & Year: H126A220039, FFY 2022; H126A240039, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2024), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) states, in part, the following: (a) 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 funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. 34 CFR § 361.60(a)(1) (July 1, 2023) states the following: Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Federal share for expenditures made by the State under the vocational rehabilitation services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan, including expenditures for the provision of vocational rehabilitation services and the administration of the vocational rehabilitation services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan, is 78.7 percent. Per 34 CFR § 76.707 (July 1, 2023), personal services performed by an employee of the State are obligated when the services are performed. Good internal control and sound accounting practices require adequate policies and procedures to ensure that information included in Federal reports is correct and accurate. Condition: The Agency lacked procedures to ensure that the unliquidated obligations, indirect costs, and administrative costs were reported accurately on the RSA-17 reports. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested two RSA-17 reports submitted by the Agency. We noted the following: Grant H126A240039, Quarter Ended March 31, 2024 • The Federal and Non-Federal Share of Unliquidated Obligations reported on lines 18 and 29 were $2,905,268 and $786,305, respectively. The amounts reported were not correct due to the following: o The Agency included the unliquidated indirect costs for the month of March 2024 twice, resulting in the amount reported being overstated by $43,901 for the Federal Share and $11,882 for the Non-Federal Share. o The Agency did not include the payroll costs for time worked from March 11, 2024, to March 24, 2024. Additionally, the Agency erroneously included the payroll costs for time worked from April 1, 2024, to April 7, 2024. This resulted in the amount reported being overstated by $164,849 for the Federal Share and $44,616 for the Non-Federal Share. o Lastly, the Agency did not provide adequate documentation to support the unliquidated amounts for contracts. Per the Agency, the amount was taken from proposals submitted by possible contractors; however, the Agency did not provide documentation to support those written commitments existed as of March 31, 2024. • The amount reported on line 36g for Federal Share of Indirect Costs was not correct. The Agency reported that the Federal share of indirect costs was $484,844. However, this was 100% of the total indirect costs recorded. Only $381,573 should have been reported as the Federal share based on the 78.7% matching rate. Therefore, the amount reported was overstated by $103,271. Grant H126A220039, Quarter Ended September 30, 2023 • Line 37 Federal and Non-Federal Administrative Expenses was not adequately supported. The Agency reported $1,606,807 of Federal and non-Federal administrative costs. The Agency did not set up business units or other accounts in the State’s financial accounting system (EnterpriseOne) sufficiently to identify the administrative costs recorded for the vocational rehabilitation program. To determine the amount of administrative costs to report, the Agency ran a general ledger of all expenditures and manually identified the administrative costs based off the payee description and prior knowledge of transactions. However, transactions appear to have been excluded that should have been included as administrative expenses. Therefore, we were unable to verify that the amount reported was correct. Cause: Inadequate review and documentation of amounts reported. Additionally, the Agency stated that there was an error in the quarter ended March 31, 2024, report that prevented the Agency from inputting the correct value for the Federal share of indirect costs. However, no documentation was provided to support this was the case. Effect: Increased risk for errors and noncompliance with Federal requirements. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency update its procedures to ensure that obligations and expenditures are being properly reported in accordance with reporting requirements. Management Response: Federal and Non-Federal Share of Unliquidated Obligations - The incorrect amounts reported for unliquidated cost March indirect costs, payroll, and contracts were due to an error when completing the report. An additional review from NDE Budget and Grant Management staff of unliquidated obligations will be included in future reports to ensure accuracy. Federal and Non-Federal Administrative Expenses was not adequately supported - The agency does set up business units or other accounts (subledgers, subsidiaries) in the State’s financial accounting system (EnterpriseOne) to sufficiently identify administrative costs. Sub ledgers ERSO, ERTRANSI and subsidiaries 110, TRYLN, SRC, TRANSI were specifically set up separate administrative costs. These will be used to identify administrative costs for future reports. APA Response: The subledgers and subsidiaries identified in the management’s response were not used to identify administrative expenses when the Agency completed the RSA-17 report. The administrative expenses reported did not agree to the amount recorded in EnterpriseOne to these subledgers and subsidiaries for the grant.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2301NERCMA, FFY 2023; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2301NESOSR, FFY 2023; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202323S251443, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. Title 471 NAC 25, Attachment A, Claiming Issues, C. Offset of Revenues (eff. 10/4/2020), states, in part: • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs; • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. • The administrative costs incurred by DHHS to administer the School Based Admin program are: salaries, benefits, operating costs, and allocated costs (per the Nebraska Cost Allocation Plan). These costs are reported on the CMS-64.10 Base Line 29. • DHHS will refund 50% of that fee to CMS and will be reported on form CMS 64-10 Base, Line 19. • DHHS will subtract the amount received for the 3% fee from the total paid to the schools as a cost allocation adjustment and report the net amount CMS 64.10 Base form, Line 19. This will occur each quarter as part of the normal cost allocation adjustment process prior to running the final cost allocation module (distribution) in Enterprise One (NIS). Similar wording is found in the Medicaid School-Based Administrative Claiming Guide provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (May 2003), Section V (“Claiming Issues”), C. (“Offset Revenues”): Certain revenues must offset allocation costs in order to reduce the total amount of costs in which the federal government will participate. To the extent the funding sources have paid or would pay for the costs at issue, federal Medicaid funding is not available and the costs must be removed from total costs . . . . The following include some of the revenue offset categories which must be applied in developing the net costs: * * * * • All applicable credits must be offset against claims for Medicaid funds. Applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction of expenditure type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to federal awards as direct or indirect costs. • A program may not claim any federal match for administrative activities if its total cost has already been paid by the revenue sources above. A government program may not be reimbursed in excess of its actual costs, i.e., make a profit. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. According to 45 CFR § 75.511(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024), “The auditee is responsible for follow-up and corrective action on all audit findings. As part of this responsibility, the auditee must prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings.” Per 45 CFR § 75.511(b) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b), “The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit’s schedule of findings and questioned costs.” 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(1) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(1), adds, “When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule need only list the audit findings and state that corrective action was taken.” Finally, 45 CFR § 75.511(b)(2) and 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2), provide, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Repeat Finding: 2023-029 Questioned Costs: $1,405,085 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We selected 10 journal entries related to the PACAP. We noted the following: • One journal entry to reconcile Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) expenditures to the PACAP did not properly account for $54,344 paid to Equifax Workforce Solutions for employment verification and credit reporting services utilized by the SNAP. As a result, Federal funds were overcharged by $27,172 and are considered questioned costs. • One journal entry moved $2,900,000 in expenses from cost center 25C20990 to cost center 25C21960 and 25C23001. Cost center 25C20990 is allocated to numerous Federal and State programs using program recipient counts to split up the costs. Meanwhile, cost center 25C23001 allocates 50% of the costs directly to Medicaid, and cost center 25C21960 is allocated to Economic Assistance programs using random moment time study (RMTS) results. Moving expenses between these cost centers caused amounts considered unallowable, or unsubstantiated, to be charged to Federal programs. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We also selected five adjustments made to the PACAP and noted the following: • One adjustment was related to the Medicaid School-based Administration program. The Agency uses a contractor to determine the allowable Medicaid activities by school district. The Agency then makes payment to the schools for the Federal share of expenses. Schools are responsible for providing matching funds. However, the Agency does not make payment for the entire Federal share due. The Agency subtracts a 3% fee for administration. The Agency then essentially pays itself through a reconciliation journal entry. Below is the adjustment performed for the quarter ended December 31, 2023: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Administrative costs of the Agency are distributed through the PACAP to benefitting programs, and would include charges to Medicaid; therefore, the Federal portion of the 3% administration fee should be credited back to Medicaid; but was not. Therefore, we question the Federal share of $20,407 for the quarter tested. • One adjustment was done to fix allocation errors made on the PACAP for the quarter ended September 30, 2023. There are 42 cost centers on the PACAP that are allocated each quarter based on various statistics. Of these 42 cost centers, 32 were allocated using incorrect statistics. When the Agency tried to correct these errors, multiple calculation errors were made, resulting in numerous undercharges and overcharges. As a result, the following programs were overcharged: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and an increased risk for errors, fraud, and noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: Journal Entry out of 25C20990: Agency agrees. The repeat finding relating to the $2.9m Journal Entry is a repeat due to the JE having occurred QE 9/30/23 which is prior to the FY23 Audit Exit being distributed and prior to the corrective action plan having been completed. Corrective Action for this item was completed as part of the FY23 Corrective Action Plan in April 2024. It should be noted that the impact of this, along with most Cost Allocation impacts, also includes undercharges to Federal Grants. Net overcharge to Federal grants is approximately $300,000. Allocation Errors in the PACAP: Agency agrees. There was a systemic issue with allocations in the 9/30/23 quarter caused by the vendor that used to process the Agency’s cost allocation plan. This was the last quarter that the vendor performed services for the Agency. DHHS was in tandem setting up the new cost allocation system, which caused more constraints on staff, resulting in inadequate review of the vendor’s work. It is noted that Federal undercharges also occurred, netting to an approximately $85,000 undercharge to Federal Grants. Since the new vendor was exclusively implemented, staff no longer have time constraints which affect their ability to perform adequate vendor reviews. School-Based Admin: Agency disagrees that the Administrative Fee is being handled incorrectly, as the current process has been vetted and approved through CMS. The current process has been in effect since 2017 and has not been flagged by CMS during that time. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program. The Agency was unable to provide any documentation to support the Federal grantor approved the handling of the administrative fee.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Services; AL 93.566 – Refugee and Entrant Assistance; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.659 – Adoption Assistance; AL 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant; AL 93.767 – Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2101NETANF, FFY 2021; 2401NESCSS, FFY 2024; 2401NERCMA, FFY 2024; 2401NELIEA, FFY 2024; 2401NECCDD, FFY 2024; 2401NEFOST, FFY 2024; 2401NEADPT, FFY 2024; 2401NESOSR, FFY 2024; 2305NE3002, FFY 2023; 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 202424S251443, FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024) require costs to be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2024) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit both preparation of required reports and tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish that the use of those funds was in accordance with applicable regulations. 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2024) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) state, in relevant part, the following: (5) For states, local governments and Indian tribes, substitute processes or systems for allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards may be used in place of or in addition to the records described in paragraph (i)(1) of this section if approved by the cognizant agency for indirect cost. Such systems may include, but are not limited to, random moment sampling, “rolling” time studies, case counts, or other quantifiable measures of work performed. (i) Substitute systems which use sampling methods (primarily for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other public assistance programs) must meet acceptable statistical sampling standards including: (A) The sampling universe must include all of the employees whose salaries and wages are to be allocated based on sample results except as provided in paragraph (i)(5)(iii) of this section; (B) The entire time period involved must be covered by the sample; and (C) The results must be statistically valid and applied to the period being sampled. Per the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP), “Time and Effort Reporting means employee reporting of the amount of time they expend on specific programs and activities. Reporting is accomplished by coding time to specific programs or activities on the employee’s time card.” Per the State of Nebraska’s Work Instruction Document for Cost Allocation, Quarterly Statistics Gathering and Compilation, formatting the Time and Pay report used for labor hour allocations, includes, “Sort through the ‘Hours’ column removing any negative and 0 hours.” Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal programs are proper. Condition: The Agency did not properly charge Federal programs for 21 of 28 allocations tested. A similar finding has been noted since 2013. Repeat Finding: 2023-030 Questioned Costs: $3,403,410 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 28 PACAP allocations. We noted errors for 21 of 28 allocations tested, resulting in various programs undercharged or overcharged. We consider the overcharges to be questioned costs. We noted the following: Time and Effort Report Allocations Three of three cost allocations tested based on Time and Effort reporting were incorrect, resulting in questioned costs of $904,248. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21940 Field Office Resource Development for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which allocated $1,266,933 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. The statistics used to calculate this allocation were not calculated correctly by the Agency. Negative hours should have been removed, and the percentage of costs split between Medicaid and CHIP was incorrect. Additionally, the payroll costs for 74 employees were charged to the cost center; however, three of the employees’ payroll costs should not have been charged to the cost center. The three employees included two Child and Family Services Specialist Supervisors (CFSSS) and a Program Specialist. The two CFSSS employees were, at one time, Resource Developers; however, when their roles changed, their pay source was not updated. The Program Specialist has been a Program Specialist since he was hired in April 2022. Two of the employees were noted as incorrect in the prior audit, but the Agency failed to update the system. As a result of these employees being charged to the Resource Development cost center instead of their appropriate cost centers, numerous programs were not charged correctly. Because of the error in allocation and the error in employee time coding, we questioned $27,988 costs for Foster Care. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20680 LS [Legal and Regulatory Services] General Teams for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, which allocated $1,275,286 of administrative costs, based on Time & Effort reports. Because of the issues detailed below, we question all Federal share of costs for cost center 25C20680 and 25C20710 for the quarter, totaling $608,069. o The cost center was not allocated using the Federally approved Time and Effort method. The Agency provided, “Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to update our PCAP to reflect the change on this allocation method. For this group, we have change [sic] the method from Time and Effort to Time Study.” o The Agency’s time study consisted of hours worked for 11 of the 52 employees coded to the cost center. The hours used were from three weeks (July 24, 2023, to August 11, 2023). This does not appear adequate, as only 11 employees for three weeks were included, and this method was not approved by the Federal grantor. A similar time study was used for cost center 25C20710 (LS Hearing Team) to allocate $263,134. o The allocation statistics the Agency calculated for cost center 25C20680 were used on cost center 25C20710, and the allocation statistics calculated for cost center 25C20710 were used on cost center 25C20680, causing major variances in how the costs were allocated. o A business unit included in cost center 25C20680 should have been coded to cost center 25C20710. o Two employees paid from cost center 25C20680 (an Internal Auditor and Office Technician) were not involved in the LS General Teams and should not have been paid from the cost center. • We tested the allocation of cost center 25C20945 IST Fiscal Projects Administration for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, which was to allocate $524,480 of administrative costs, based on “a statistical analysis activity benefiting specific programs that IST Finance is responsible for processing.” The PACAP contradicts itself, later listing the allocation method of this cost center as a “Time and Effort” statistic. During testing, we noted the cost center was using a statistic prepared by “analysis” prior to December 31, 2020, and the same numbers have been used since then. Because the statistic used is clearly outdated, we question the Federal share of the entire allocation, totaling $268,191. Questioned costs by Program for Time and Effort Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. RMTS Allocations For five of five allocations tested based on Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) observations, the RMTS Summary report was not allocated correctly to the various State and Federal programs, resulting in $104,074 in Federal questioned costs. The following RMTS allocations were tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. • RMTS observations were not properly determined. We reviewed two quarters to determine if observations were correctly counted. The December quarter allocation included 3,613 activity observations, and the June quarter included 4,382 observations. We noted the following: o 23 RMTS observations were “reassigned” and coded to a response that was different from the original response. The original observation would have been charged to State funding; however, reassigning resulted in the observations being allocated to various Federal programs. o Five observations were not included on the quarterly reports because these reports were created before all observations for the quarter were submitted. o Two observations were validated by a supervisor; however, they were reassigned to a different activity. The Agency was unable to provide an explanation for why these observations were reassigned after being validated. o One observation was not included on the quarterly report. The Agency was unable to identify which response was not included or why it was not included. • The Agency did not properly allocate observations in accordance with the PACAP for 2 of the 83 activities in the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and 3 of the 76 activities in the quarter ended June 30, 2024: o One RMTS observation for the December quarter and 13 June quarter observations were to SNAP and AABD, which, per the PACAP, should be coded half to SNAP and half to State. The Agency incorrectly coded one-third to SNAP, one-third to State, and one-third to SSBG. o One June quarter observation was for TANF, Employment First, and SNAP. As this is coded to three activities, it should be split three ways, but the Agency allocated half to TANF and half to SNAP. o Per the PACAP, Child Protection Initial Assessment is allocated to Foster Care, Guardianship, and Adoption. For both quarters tested, there was an observation not split between all applicable programs. • The P&S IV-E and Non-IV-E allocation for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, included expenses from two business units, totaling $2,466,426, that should have been included in the cost center for Case Management Training. As a result, Foster Care was undercharged, and Adoption and Guardianship were overcharged. Questioned costs by Program for RMTS Allocations are as follows: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Labor Hours Statistics The PACAP includes 38 cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs through labor hours. Over $65 million in costs were allocated by labor hours during the 2024 State fiscal year. We tested six of these allocations, and all six allocations had errors. Below is a summary of allocations tested: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. We noted the following issues: • The PACAP defines various labor hour (LH) statistics to be used to allocate costs. Labor hour statistics used were incorrect. o LH1 statistics should include all Agency hours worked (i.e., does not include paid leave) and exclude two-thirds of the labor hours from 24-hour facilities. The Agency did not remove negative hours and did not exclude two-thirds of the hours in the 24-hour facilities. LH1 also excluded hours from numerous cost centers that should have been included. o The LH2 statistic (LH1 hours excluding all hours worked in field offices and 24-hour facilities) incorrectly included hours from five field office cost centers, totaling 627,646 hours. Additionally, hours from two cost centers, totaling 119 hours, were improperly excluded. o The LH4 statistic (which is based on hours paid, including leave hours) did not remove negative hours and did not include leave pay type codes (such as civil leave, injury leave, and holiday leave). In addition, for one quarter tested, the Agency incorrectly applied the Medicaid match rate to the Medicaid hours, thus undercharging Medicaid and overcharging multiple Federal programs. o One cost center tested should have included labor hours for the division. The total hours used should have been 857,278, but the Agency failed to include three cost centers, totaling 10,065 hours. Additionally, one cost center with 1,036 hours was included twice. • The Agency implemented new allocation software starting with the quarter ended December 31, 2023. Two of six allocations tested were not set up properly. o Human Resource Development costs should have been allocated to 169 benefiting cost centers but were only allocated to four cost centers. o LH4 statistics were not applied properly in the cost allocation software, resulting in three unrelated cost centers being overcharged, while not charging any costs to six of the cost centers that should have been included. The errors noted above resulted in numerous misallocations, with many programs having undercharges and/or overcharges. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, we were unable to determine total questioned costs. However, we were able to identify the following overcharges that we consider to be questioned costs. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Direct Allocations For 1 of 10 direct allocations tested, the amount directly allocated to a final cost center or method of allocation was incorrect, based on the Federally approved Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). We tested the allocation of cost center 25C21795 (Protection and Safety New Worker training) for the quarter ending December 31, 2023, in the amount of $484,991, which is directly (i.e., 100%) allocated to Foster Care. We noted four business units mapped to the wrong cost center, which resulted in $26,802 questioned costs for Adoption Assistance. Recipient Counts The PACAP includes five cost centers allocated to State and Federal programs based on recipient counts per NFOCUS and MMIS reports. NFOCUS and MMIS are applications used to manage various programs such as SNAP, Child Care, TANF, and Medicaid. Over $28 million in costs were allocated using these counts during the State fiscal year 2024. We tested the allocations for three quarters and noted all three were incorrect because the recipient counts used in the allocations did not agree to support. We noted the following: • The Agency did not maintain the detail for the recipients of Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The numbers used in the allocations for Medicaid and CHIP were maintained on a summary spreadsheet. The counts used for all three allocations tested, pulled from the summary spreadsheet, did not include Medicaid Expansion recipients in the count of Medicaid recipients, thus undercharging Medicaid for all three quarters tested and overcharging all other programs included in the allocation. Furthermore, when we requested detailed reports to support the numbers on the summary spreadsheet, the Agency was unable to provide detailed reports at the time of the allocation. Instead, the reports showed recipients for Medicaid and CHIP for December 2023, March 2024, and June 2024, as of September 2024. The detailed report did not agree to the summary spreadsheets. • One cost center for the Expansion Call Center used outdated counts, dating back to at least the quarter ending December 31, 2020. • Multiple other recipient counts were off due to clerical errors: o The counts for TANF Solely State Funded Plan were wrong for each quarter tested. The December, March, and June quarter counts included 0, 1,623, and 2,072 recipients when the supported number was 1,623, 1,832, and 1,985, respectively. o The March quarter counts for SNAP included 2,000 fewer recipients than what was supported. o The March quarter counts included an additional 26 recipients in AABD – State Supplement. o The June quarter counts included an additional 19 recipients for “DD SERVICE COORDINATION – State Only” and 1 additional recipient for Child Welfare that were unsupported. We recalculated each quarter’s allocation, based on the supported recipient counts available, and have the following questioned costs: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Other We tested the allocation of cost center 25C23823 iServe IAPD H971 – Shared, which allocated $13,523,554 in project costs. The iServe Nebraska Portal, which is an application for Nebraskans to apply for benefits from Federal and State programs, began implementation in July 2021, and went live in October 2023, replacing ACCESSNebraska. For the implementation phase of the project, the Agency allocated costs to only the following four programs: LIHEAP, TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. However, there are other Federal and State programs that will utilize the iServe application. We reviewed documentation obtained in the prior year, including correspondence from the Agency’s Federal contacts, which stated, “As long as SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF are the only benefiting programs for the State’s iServe Nebraska Portal project, the State may just include these four programs in the development of its cost allocation plan. If/when the State decides to add other Federal programs that will benefit from enhancements to the portal, it will need to revisit and adjust its cost allocation plan.” In addition to SNAP, Medicaid, LIHEAP, and TANF, other programs went live during the fiscal year, including Child Care, SSBG, Refugee Assistance, and various State programs. We noted the following: • The SSBG program began implementation October 1, 2023, and went live April 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The Refugee Assistance program began implementation on March 1, 2024, but no costs were allocated to the program. • The allocation method had been updated by the Federal grantor as of October 1, 2023; however, the Budget Team was unaware of this update until our inquiry. The allocation now includes Child Care and some State-funded programs, such as Assistance to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled Program and State Disability Program. The new allocation was approved for the quarter ended December 31, 2023, and the Agency made adjustments to allocate those costs. However, the implementation date began in 2021 and, as noted in the prior audit, the Agency did not allocate any implementation costs to these programs. This does not agree with “APPENDIX D – Benefit Programs Associated With iServe Portal and iServe IBEEM Projects,” which includes more benefitting programs than the allocation method used. We were unable to determine questioned costs for the cost center. The total costs allocated from the iServe project for fiscal year 2024 are noted below. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that allocations were adequately supported and calculated correctly. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is increased risk of programs not being charged the proper amounts. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that employee pay is recorded correctly in E1; system reports are set up correctly, and formatting instructions are followed; and costs are properly allocated and charged, based on supporting documentation. Management Response: Time and Effort: Agency partially agrees. A retroactive PACAP amendment has been submitted for the Legal cost center allocation method changes (from Time and Effort to Time Study). Note the change in allocation method is not materially different in that both methods are calculating hours spent in support of programs/activities. The time study consists of the hours of the Attorneys in each cost center (the referenced 11 staff). The additional staff that were not part of the time study are the support staff (Paralegals and admins) to the Attorneys, whose hours would be indicative of the hours spent on projects and activities by the Attorneys. The approved PACAP had already stated that the Time and Effort reporting was from the Attorneys (for Legal Hearings cost center, they are referred to as “Hearing Officers”). Federal undercharges did occur and incorporating them into the finding changes it from an overcharge of $608,000 to a net Federal overcharge of $41,000. Regarding the IST Fiscal Projects Admin cost center, Agency agrees that method was outdated and agrees to the questioned cost. RMTS Allocations: Agency agrees. It should be noted that the Agency reassigned the cases due to having the knowledge that staff incorrectly selected the state-only response “Non-DHHS Activities”, which is used for staff members who are temporarily reassigned off their current caseworker role and are performing activity unrelated to any of the work covered under the RMTS system vs. the intended “General Administration” activity. Labor Hours Statistics: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Recipient Counts: Agency Agrees. Significant Federal undercharges also occurred and will be netted with the Federal overcharges. Other: Agency will continue to update the allocation of iServe in accordance with the most recent CMS approved Advanced Planning Documents. APA Response: While the APA acknowledges that some undercharges may have occurred, it would not be appropriate to net undercharges of one program with overcharges to another program.
Program: AL 17.225 – Unemployment Insurance (UI) – State – Reporting Grant Number & Year: N/A Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 2900.4 (January 1, 2024), the U.S. Department of Labor adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance as its policies and procedures for financial assistance administration. Per 2 CFR § 200.302(a) (January 1, 2024): [T]he 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. The ETA Handbook 401 (5th Edition) (August 16, 2017) states the following, in relevant part: c. Line 12. Penalty/Interest. Enter in columns C and D the net collections of penalty, interest, and fines deposited during the month if transferred to the UTF. * * * * g. Line 36. FECA Net Federal Benefits – UCX. Enter in columns C and F the net Federal portion of unemployment compensation paid to former members of the armed services from funds in the benefit payment account. The total payments should be adjusted for refunds deposited during the month, credits and recharges, and cancellations and reissuances and exclude EUC08 benefits. Report in column F all benefits paid, including amounts transferred to the IRS for Federal income tax withholding, regardless whether paid from the state account in the UTF or the state benefit payment account. * * * * s. Line 46. FECA Net Benefit Payments-UCFE. Enter in columns C and F net benefit payments made during the month to former Federal civilian (including postal) employees, excluding EUC 2008, with funds from the FEC account. Report in column F all benefits paid, including amounts transferred to the IRS for Federal income tax withholding, regardless whether paid from the state account in the UTF or the state benefit payment account. Good internal control requires adequate procedures to ensure reports are complete and accurate. Condition: During testing of the ETA 2112 reports, we noted the following: • For three reports tested, a reconciliation of the ending balance per the report to the bank statement for each account was not completed. • For two reports tested, amounts reported either could not be traced to supporting documentation or used the inaccurate amounts from the supporting documentation provided. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: The ETA 2112 Report is a monthly summary of transactions in the State unemployment insurance fund, which consists of the Clearing Account, Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) Account, and Benefit Payment Account. Agency controls over the ETA 2112 report include completing a reconciliation of the ending balance per the report to the bank statement for each account. For the three months the APA tested, a reconciliation was completed by the Agency; however, the ending balances per the report did not agree to the reconciled bank account balances. See the table below for a summary of the variances noted. After this issue was brought to the Agency’s attention, the Agency restated all 12 reports for fiscal year 2024. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. In addition to testing the Agency’s reconciliations, the APA performed detailed testing of two monthly ETA 2112 reports. During this review, the following issues were noted: October 2023 • The beginning benefit account balance did not agree to the ending benefit account balance from the September 2023 report, resulting in the beginning balance being overstated by $39,217. • Total benefit disbursements and Net UI Benefit disbursements were understated by $37,168, as the Agency had backed out re-issued payments for the month. • The ending benefit account balance did not agree to the reconciled ending benefit bank account balance, due to the issues noted above, resulting in the ending balance being overstated by $76,385. • Clearing account Penalty/Interest deposits reported were amounts charged during the month, not amounts collected. This resulted in Penalty/Interest deposits being understated by $13,747 and Net UI Contributions being overstated by $13,747. The first three errors noted were corrected by the Agency with a reissued report on July 12, 2024, after we questioned the Agency about the amounts reported. The fourth error noted was not corrected. February 2024 • The beginning benefit account balance did not agree to the ending benefit account balance from the January 2024 report, resulting in the beginning balance being overstated by $140,808. • Total benefit disbursements and Net UI Benefit disbursements were understated by $33,826, as the Agency had backed out re-issued payments for the month. Additionally, these items were overstated by $85, as the Agency had manually adjusted February 2024 outstanding checks in order to have the ending balance agree to their reporting software. • The ending benefit account balance did not agree to the reconciled ending benefit bank account balance, due to the issues noted above, resulting in the ending balance being overstated by $174,549. • UCX and UCFE benefit disbursements were reported net of Federal and State withholdings when these amounts should have been included. This resulted in UCX disbursements being understated by $1,006, UCFE disbursements being understated by $2,495, and Net UI Benefit disbursements being overstated by $3,501. • January 2024 outstanding checks were not adjusted for January 2024 activity on the benefit account reconciliation, resulting in the beginning balance being understated by $13,209 and Net UI Benefits disbursements being overstated by $13,209. This error was not corrected by the Agency when the reports were reissued. The first three errors noted were corrected by the Agency with a reissued report on July 12, 2024, after we questioned the Agency about the amounts reported. The fourth and fifth errors noted were not corrected. Additionally, for both months tested, it was noted that the Daily Payment Register Summary was used to report the amount of disbursements by program. However, the Daily Payment Register Summary does not account for cancellations, which caused certain program disbursements to be overstated, such as UCFE, and Net UI Benefits to be understated. Cause: Inadequate review and reporting procedures. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is an increased risk of inaccurate amounts being reported for unemployment insurance programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency implement procedures to ensure that amounts reported for unemployment insurance programs are accurate. These procedures should ensure the following: 1) accurate reconciliations between the ending balances on the reports and supporting documentation are completed; 2) duplicate payments for the various programs are accounted for to ensure proper reporting; 3) amounts reported on the 2112 report can be traced to supporting documentation; and 4) amounts reported on the 2112 report are in line with Federal and State guidelines. Management Response: NDOL agrees that incorrect values were taken from reports, and that the reconciliation and review process was not sufficient.
Program: AL 21.023 – COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance – Reporting Grant Number & Year: ERAE1185, grant period ending 9/30/2025 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2024), the U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200. 2 CFR § 200.302(a) (January 1, 2024) states, in relevant part, the following: [T]he 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. The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA 2) Reporting Guidance (Revised January 3, 2024), issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, states, in part, the following: Each ERA2 Recipient must report the cumulative number of unique ERA2 participant households that were paid any dollar amount for at least one of the following: rent, rental arrears, utilities/home energy costs, utility/home energy arrears, or other expenses related to housing, between the date of receipt of the ERA2 award and the end of the current reporting period, by the following ranges of household income levels: i. Less than 30% of area median income (#) ii. Between 30% and 50% of area median income (#) iii. Between 50% and 80% of area median income (#) A good internal control plan requires procedures to ensure that all required information is reported accurately and supported by underlying data. Condition: For two of two quarterly reports tested, figures reported for unique participant households at certain income levels did not agree to supporting documentation. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: For the quarters ended March 31, 2024, and June 30, 2024, ERA 2 quarterly compliance reports, the Agency reported a cumulative number of unique households of 862 and 1,940, respectively. We noted during testing that the cumulative number of unique households, once split between different ranges of household income levels, did not agree with the Agency’s supporting documentation. The tables below show the differences between the reported households and the actual households. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Inadequate review of supporting documentation. Effect: Without adequate procedures to ensure reports contain accurate information, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency implement procedures to ensure figures reported in the ERA 2 quarterly compliance reports are accurate and agree to supporting documentation. Management Response: A vendor supplied report was found to contain an error in the way summary AMI data was accumulated.
Program: AL 21.027 – COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – Reporting Grant Number & Year: SLFRP1965, March 3, 2021, through December 31, 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: 31 CFR § 35.3 (July 1, 2023) defines “obligation” as the following: [A]n order placed for property and services and entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment. 31 CFR § 35.6(b)(4) (July 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: A recipient, other than a Tribal government, must prepare a written justification for certain capital expenditures according to Table 1 to paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Such written justification must include the following elements: (i) Describe the harm or need to be addressed; (ii) Explain why a capital expenditure is appropriate; and (iii) Compare the proposed capital expenditure to at least two alternative capital expenditures and demonstrate why the proposed capital expenditure is superior. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. 2 CFR § 200.302(a) (January 1, 2024) states, in relevant part, the following: [T]he 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[.] Good internal control and sound business practices require policies and procedures to ensure that all Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) reporting requirements are met, including the maintenance of written justification on file for projects with expected capital expenditures of more than $1 million and that written justification is submitted to the Treasury, as required, for projects with expected capital expenditures of $10 million or more. 2 CFR § 200.511(a) (January 1, 2024) requires the auditee to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings. Per subsection (b)(2) of that same regulation, “When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding’s recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken.” Condition: The Department of Administrative Services (DAS) was responsible for preparing the Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports. DAS lacked procedures to ensure that CSLFRF obligations and expenditures were reported accurately on the Quarterly Project and Expenditure Reports, or written justification was accurately submitted or on file for projects with expected capital expenditures. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as complete. Repeat Finding: 2023-062 Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested the quarters ended December 31, 2023, and June 30, 2024, Project and Expenditure reports. We selected 10 of 93 projects from the quarter ended December 31, 2023, report and 10 of 96 projects from the quarter ended June 30, 2024, report to test. We noted the following: Current and Cumulative Obligations Reported Nine of the projects tested did not have current obligations or cumulative obligations reported correctly, as shown in the following table. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. For the Nursing Scholarships and Private Reverse Osmosis projects, the obligations consisted of multiple different awards to individuals. When testing some of the awards, we noted that the date the State was reporting the awards as obligated did not agree to the date that the awards were signed. For example, one award tested was reported as obligated in December 2023, but it was not actually signed until January 2024. Therefore, we were unable to determine the amount that should have been reported as obligations. During testing of the projects above, we also noted the following errors in the obligations reported. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Additionally, the PH EMS Ambulance project reported $0 in current period obligations on the quarter ended September 30, 2023, report. However, we reviewed two awards that were reported as obligated in April 2023 but were not actually signed until July 2023. Therefore, the current period obligations for September 2023 were understated. Current and Cumulative Expenditures Reported Three of the projects tested did not have cumulative or current period expenditures reported correctly. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. For the Loan Repayment for Healthcare Workers project, $53,802 should have been reported under the ARPA Administration project, of which $23,709 was current period expenditures. Additionally, during our testing of the projects above, we noted that the cumulative expenditures reported for projects administered by the State Colleges System were overstated by $6,999 as of June 30, 2024. Capital Expenditures Four projects either did not properly report expected capital expenditures, or the required written justification was not on file. • Long-Term Housing Security – Affordable Housing – The State reported expected capital expenditures of $750,000 as of June 30, 2024, for this project and included no written justification in the quarterly report. Per the Department of Economic Development (DED), the State agency administering the project, all $39.4 million of CSLFRF funds obligated under the project are expected to be used for capital expenditures. Based on this valuation, written justification would have been required to be submitted to the Treasury and kept on file. Per DED, no written justification had been completed for the project, and nothing was submitted to the Treasury. • PH EMS Ambulance – The State reported no expected capital expenditures for this project. The project uses CSLFRF grant funds to reimburse licensed EMS services for partial costs of acquiring new ambulances. Per discussion with DHHS, all costs recorded under this project should be expected capital expenditures. DHHS treated each subaward under the project separately when determining if written justification was required. As no single subaward was for $1 million or more, DHHS had not documented any written justification. • Medical Facilities for Disproportionately Impacted Communities – The State reported no expected capital expenditures for this project, which is solely for the design and construction of a new clinic. Per discussion with DED, the agency administering the project, the project should have had $2,000,000 of expected capital expenditures. DED also stated that no written justification had been completed for the project. • New Law Enforcement Training Center – The State reported expected capital expenditures of $47,000,000 for this project. The written justification was submitted with the quarterly report; however, the written justification did not include a comparison of the proposed capital expenditure to at least two alternatives and demonstrate why the proposed expenditure was superior, as required by Federal regulations. • Additionally, during testing we noted that the Food Security project reported expected capital expenditures of $3,967,469; however, no written justification was on file for the project. DHHS treated each subaward under the project separately when determining if written justification was required. As no single subaward was for $1 million or more, DHHS had not documented any written justification. Cause: Individual agencies were responsible for reporting to DAS what should be reported on the Quarterly Project and Expenditure Report. Not all information reported by the agencies was accurate, and the State was not determining obligations in accordance with Federal definitions in several instances. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk that the quarterly project and expenditure reports will be materially misstated, and required written justification will not be on file. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure that all quarterly project and expenditure reports are complete and accurate, and any required written justification is maintained on file or submitted to the Treasury as required. Management Response: Each quarter DAS pulls actual expenditures during the reporting period and sends to each agency for their reconciliation. Each agency submits its obligations and reconciled expenditures which are inputted into the US Treasury portal. DAS is working with agencies to ensure all funds are obligated as of December 31, 2024.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) each year during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 ($3,070, $745,718 and 119 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($7,062, $754,729 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported on the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 ($452,658, $117,344 and 117 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($62,794, $459,556 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Of the eight reports the School Corporation was required to submit during the audit period, auditable evidence of review and approval of these reports was only provided for two. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes, see Finding 2022-002.Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) each year during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 ($3,070, $745,718 and 119 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($7,062, $754,729 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported on the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 ($452,658, $117,344 and 117 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($62,794, $459,556 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Of the eight reports the School Corporation was required to submit during the audit period, auditable evidence of review and approval of these reports was only provided for two. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes, see Finding 2022-002.Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) each year during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 ($3,070, $745,718 and 119 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($7,062, $754,729 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II, ESSER III and CrossAct amounts reported on the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 ($452,658, $117,344 and 117 employees respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure and employee records ($62,794, $459,556 and 207 employees respectively) for the same period. Of the eight reports the School Corporation was required to submit during the audit period, auditable evidence of review and approval of these reports was only provided for two. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes, see Finding 2022-002.Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit two Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER II, and ESSER III amounts reported for the reports covering the FY22 time period ($99,969 and $251,848, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($105,319 and $369,743, respectively, for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022). Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II, and ESSER III amounts reported for the reports covering the FY23 time period ($168,087 and $266,122, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($169,046 and $241,329, respectively, for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023). We also noted there was no documented, secondary review of the information in the annual data reports by someone other than the preparer. Identification as a repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit. The prior finding number was 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit two Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER II, and ESSER III amounts reported for the reports covering the FY22 time period ($99,969 and $251,848, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($105,319 and $369,743, respectively, for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022). Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II, and ESSER III amounts reported for the reports covering the FY23 time period ($168,087 and $266,122, respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($169,046 and $241,329, respectively, for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023). We also noted there was no documented, secondary review of the information in the annual data reports by someone other than the preparer. Identification as a repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit. The prior finding number was 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers: S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($1,459,495 and $5,966,446, and $1,220,584 respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($514,738 and $1,651,887 and $2,259,794, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II amount reported on the Year 4 report ($395,303) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,247,686), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Finally, there was no formal review of the Annual Data Reports prior to their submission to the IDOE. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers: S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($1,459,495 and $5,966,446, and $1,220,584 respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($514,738 and $1,651,887 and $2,259,794, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II amount reported on the Year 4 report ($395,303) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,247,686), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Finally, there was no formal review of the Annual Data Reports prior to their submission to the IDOE. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers: S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 Financial reporting . . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation was required to submit Annual Data Reports to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) during the audit period to meet federal reporting requirements for ESSER grant awards. We noted that the ESSER I, ESSER II and ESSER III amounts reported on the Year 3 report ($1,459,495 and $5,966,446, and $1,220,584 respectively) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($514,738 and $1,651,887 and $2,259,794, respectively), for the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Additionally, we noted that the ESSER II amount reported on the Year 4 report ($395,303) did not agree to the underlying expenditure records ($1,247,686), for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. Finally, there was no formal review of the Annual Data Reports prior to their submission to the IDOE. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend someone other than the preparer of the report perform a documented review prior to submission to validate the accuracy and completeness of the data submitted. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Reporting Federal Agency: Indiana Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-010. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Even though the reports were reviewed by someone other than the preparer, the School Corporation was not able to provide financial information that was used to determine amounts used in the reports. The School Corporation completed and submitted four annual Data Collection reports (Reports) for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grants. For all four of the Reports, the School Corporation was unable to provide financial information to support the amounts in the Reports; therefore, the Indiana State Board of Accounts could not determine the accuracy of the Reports. Additionally, eight of eight key line items selected for testing could not be verified to the financial records. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Cause According to the School Corporation, these issues were due to the reporting differences of how the annual expenditure report categories are different than the annual Data Collection reports. The School Corporation indicated that it had to go employee by employee to properly place them under the correct category using the reimbursement requests but did not retain that documentation of how it came to the numbers. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled noncompliance to go undetected with the Reporting compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish effective internal controls to ensure reports submitted are accurate and have supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Reporting Federal Agency: Indiana Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-010. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Even though the reports were reviewed by someone other than the preparer, the School Corporation was not able to provide financial information that was used to determine amounts used in the reports. The School Corporation completed and submitted four annual Data Collection reports (Reports) for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grants. For all four of the Reports, the School Corporation was unable to provide financial information to support the amounts in the Reports; therefore, the Indiana State Board of Accounts could not determine the accuracy of the Reports. Additionally, eight of eight key line items selected for testing could not be verified to the financial records. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Cause According to the School Corporation, these issues were due to the reporting differences of how the annual expenditure report categories are different than the annual Data Collection reports. The School Corporation indicated that it had to go employee by employee to properly place them under the correct category using the reimbursement requests but did not retain that documentation of how it came to the numbers. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled noncompliance to go undetected with the Reporting compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish effective internal controls to ensure reports submitted are accurate and have supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.