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 93.778 - Medical Assistance Program; AL 93.959 - Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse; AL 93.767 - Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 23B1NESAPT, FFY 2023; 20242S251443, FFY 2024; 2301NECCDD; FFY 2023; 52305NE3002; 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. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) require payroll expenses charged to Federal awards to be based on official records that accurately reflect the work performed. Good internal control and sound accounting practices require policies and procedures to ensure that all payroll costs are properly recorded within the State accounting system and allocated to the proper funding source for activities performed. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. We also noted no attempt was made to recover apparently fraudulent payroll expenses. Repeat Finding: 2023-031 Questioned Costs: $11,866 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 25 employee paychecks paid with Federal funds. Five of the 25 employees tested had payroll charged to the Substance Abuse and Prevention Block Grant (SAPTBG). We tested the May 1, 2024, paycheck for an Administrator. Payroll expenses were allocated 100% to the SAPTBG. However, the Agency could not provide documentation to show that 100% of the Administrator’s time was working on projects related to the SAPTBG. Based on some of the job duties of the employee, it appeared some time could have been coded to the Community Mental Health Services grant. All payroll for the period was questioned. Federal SAPTBG payroll charges tested totaled $6,908, and we noted $2,963 in sampled questioned costs. Federal payroll charges for SAPTBG totaled $473,739. We tested the January 24, 2024, paycheck for an IT Business Systems Analyst and noted the initial payroll expenses were split among several Economic and Assistance programs based on a time study that was effective during fiscal year 2022. Per the Fiscal Project Analyst, an updated study had not been done and should be done annually. The payroll expenses charged to the cost center were then allocated based on a time and effort study that had not been updated since at least September 2020. Payroll expenses charged to the Federal programs were questioned, and potential dollars at risk totaled over $5,000,000. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Additionally, we reviewed the disciplinary actions against employees during the fiscal year. One employee tested was terminated on September 26, 2023, for falsifying the number of overtime hours worked. While working remotely on Saturday and Sundays, the employee would work only 30-60 minutes; however, he would then claim 10 hours of overtime for both of those days. The Agency reviewed the employee’s overtime hours reported to the supervisor, the KRONOS timecards, and time stamps of the work completed outside the employee’s scheduled shifts for the timeframe of May 7, 2023, through August 11, 2023. The employee reported and was paid for 469.5 overtime hours; however, the Agency determined the employee worked only 34.5 hours of overtime, a difference of 435 hours. The employee was paid $17,052 for overtime hours that were never worked in just a three-month timeframe. During fiscal year 2024, the Medicaid grant was overcharged $7,780 in apparently fraudulent payroll expenses for this employee. The employee was terminated, but no further action was taken against him. Moreover, no attempt was made to recover the amounts paid to the employee for the falsification of hours worked. Cause: Inadequate policies and procedures for review and documentation of payroll expenses. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is an 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 the State accounting system, and those costs are properly allocated and charged. Management Response: Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.778 - Medical Assistance Program; AL 93.959 - Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse; AL 93.767 - Children’s Health Insurance Program; AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2405NE5ADM, FFY 2024; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 23B1NESAPT, FFY 2023; 20242S251443, FFY 2024; 2301NECCDD; FFY 2023; 52305NE3002; 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. 45 CFR § 75.430(i) (October 1, 2023) and 2 CFR § 200.430(i) (January 1, 2024) require payroll expenses charged to Federal awards to be based on official records that accurately reflect the work performed. Good internal control and sound accounting practices require policies and procedures to ensure that all payroll costs are properly recorded within the State accounting system and allocated to the proper funding source for activities performed. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. We also noted no attempt was made to recover apparently fraudulent payroll expenses. Repeat Finding: 2023-031 Questioned Costs: $11,866 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 25 employee paychecks paid with Federal funds. Five of the 25 employees tested had payroll charged to the Substance Abuse and Prevention Block Grant (SAPTBG). We tested the May 1, 2024, paycheck for an Administrator. Payroll expenses were allocated 100% to the SAPTBG. However, the Agency could not provide documentation to show that 100% of the Administrator’s time was working on projects related to the SAPTBG. Based on some of the job duties of the employee, it appeared some time could have been coded to the Community Mental Health Services grant. All payroll for the period was questioned. Federal SAPTBG payroll charges tested totaled $6,908, and we noted $2,963 in sampled questioned costs. Federal payroll charges for SAPTBG totaled $473,739. We tested the January 24, 2024, paycheck for an IT Business Systems Analyst and noted the initial payroll expenses were split among several Economic and Assistance programs based on a time study that was effective during fiscal year 2022. Per the Fiscal Project Analyst, an updated study had not been done and should be done annually. The payroll expenses charged to the cost center were then allocated based on a time and effort study that had not been updated since at least September 2020. Payroll expenses charged to the Federal programs were questioned, and potential dollars at risk totaled over $5,000,000. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Additionally, we reviewed the disciplinary actions against employees during the fiscal year. One employee tested was terminated on September 26, 2023, for falsifying the number of overtime hours worked. While working remotely on Saturday and Sundays, the employee would work only 30-60 minutes; however, he would then claim 10 hours of overtime for both of those days. The Agency reviewed the employee’s overtime hours reported to the supervisor, the KRONOS timecards, and time stamps of the work completed outside the employee’s scheduled shifts for the timeframe of May 7, 2023, through August 11, 2023. The employee reported and was paid for 469.5 overtime hours; however, the Agency determined the employee worked only 34.5 hours of overtime, a difference of 435 hours. The employee was paid $17,052 for overtime hours that were never worked in just a three-month timeframe. During fiscal year 2024, the Medicaid grant was overcharged $7,780 in apparently fraudulent payroll expenses for this employee. The employee was terminated, but no further action was taken against him. Moreover, no attempt was made to recover the amounts paid to the employee for the falsification of hours worked. Cause: Inadequate policies and procedures for review and documentation of payroll expenses. Effect: Without adequate documentation to support the allocation of costs, there is an 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 the State accounting system, and those costs are properly allocated and charged. Management Response: Agency agrees.
Program: AL 21.023 – COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance – Allowability & Eligibility Grant Number & Year: ERAE1185, grant period ending 9/30/2025 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: Title III, Subtitle B, Section 3201(f)(2), of the American Rescue Plan Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2 (March 11, 2021) states the following: ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD. – The term ‘‘eligible household’’ means a household of 1 or more individuals who are obligated to pay rent on a residential dwelling and with respect to which the eligible grantee involved determines that— (A) 1 or more individuals within the household has-- (i) qualified for unemployment benefits; or (ii) experienced a reduction in household income, incurred significant costs, or experienced other financial hardship during or due, directly or indirectly, to the coronavirus pandemic; (B) 1 or more individuals within the household can demonstrate a risk of experiencing homelessness or housing instability; and (C) the household is a low-income family (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)). Low-income family is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(b)(2)(A) as follows: [F]amilies whose incomes do not exceed 80 per centum of the median income for the area, as determined by the Secretary with adjustments for smaller and larger families . . . . 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. 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. Question 4 of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guidance document (Revised March 5, 2024), issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, for the Emergency Rental Assistance program, states, in relevant part, the following: If a written attestation without further verification is relied on to document the majority of the applicant’s income, the grantee must reassess the household’s income every three months, by obtaining appropriate documentation or a new self-attestation. Question 5 of the FAQ guidance document states, in relevant part, the following: Grantees must obtain, if available, a current lease, signed by the applicant and the landlord or sublessor, that identifies the unit where the applicant resides and establishes the rental payment amount. If a household does not have a signed lease, documentation of residence may include evidence of paying utilities for the residential unit, an attestation by a landlord who can be identified as the verified owner or management agent of the unit, or other reasonable documentation as determined by the grantee. In the absence of a signed lease, evidence of the amount of a rental payment may include bank statements, check stubs, or other documentation that reasonably establishes a pattern of paying rent, a written attestation by a landlord who can be verified as the legitimate owner or management agent of the unit, or other reasonable documentation as defined by the grantee in its policies and procedures. Question 7 of the FAQ guidance document states, in relevant part, the following: For both ERA1 and ERA2, other expenses related to housing include relocation expenses (including prospective relocation expenses), such as rental security deposits, and rental fees, which may include application or screening fees. It can also include reasonable accrued late fees (if not included in rental or utility arrears), and Internet service provided to the rental unit . . . . All payments for housing-related expenses must be supported by documentary evidence such as a bill, invoice, or evidence of payment to the provider of the service. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that adequate supporting documentation is obtained and utilized during the application review process. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Condition: Procedures were inadequate to ensure that households were eligible and that the payment amounts were correct. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. Repeat Finding: 2023-058 Questioned Costs: $12,343 known Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 27 assistance payments. We noted the following: • For four payments, adequate income verification was not performed. o For one payment, the application stated that there was only one adult in the household. However, a second adult was included on the lease agreement. The Agency failed to verify whether a second adult was included in the household; thus, income verification was also not performed on the second adult. This resulted in questioned costs of $2,730. o For two payments, at least one member from each household attested on the application that the household member did not have income. Subsequent payments were made for rent three months after the attestation. The Agency did not reassess the household’s income, nor obtain a new self-attestation as required per the FAQ. This resulted in questioned costs of $3,525. o For one payment, the applicant was married but did not include the spouse on the application. The Agency considered only the applicant’s income when determining eligibility. However, income documentation on file for both the applicant and the spouse would result in the applicant being ineligible. The Agency did not verify whether the spouse should have been included in the household. This resulted in questioned costs of $3,540. • For 10 payments, the payment amount was incorrect. o For one payment, the Agency calculated a payment amount of $1,285; however, after reviewing the lease, we calculated an amount of $1,161, a difference of $123. o For eight payments, we did not agree with the amount paid for late fees. For rent paid for future months, it was the Agency’s policy to pay the late fee if the payment was approved after the 15th of the previous month. For example, if the Agency approved a rental payment for the month of May 2024 on April 16, 2024, the Agency would also pay a late fee for May 2024. However, per review of the actual date paid, the late fees paid were either excessive or should not have been paid at all. Additionally, in some cases, the Agency calculated the late fee by taking the monthly rent amount multiplied by 10%. However, this also resulted in the amount of late fees paid being excessive per the lease agreement. In total, we questioned $425 in excessive late fees. o For one payment, the Agency paid future rent for three months, totaling $3,000, on May 7, 2024. However, the tenant moved after the first month. The Agency did not start to attempt to collect the overpayment of $2,000 until January 10, 2025. The $2,000 overpayment is considered questioned costs. Federal payment errors for the sample tested were $12,343. The total sample tested was $68,482, and assistance payments for the fiscal year totaled $11,541,538. Based on the sample tested, the dollar error rate for the sample was 18.02% ($12,343/$68,482), which estimated the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2024 to be $2,079,785 (dollar error rate multiplied by the population). Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure all income was verified, and self-attestations of income were obtained every three months. Inadequate procedures to ensure the payment amount was correct. Effect: Increased risk of loss or misuse of funds and noncompliance with Federal guidelines. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen policies and procedures to ensure applicants are eligible for assistance, and payment amounts are reasonable and proper. Management Response: NEMA will work with NIFA to strengthen policies and procedures and provide additional guidance to Nelnet agents to ensure applicants are eligible for assistance and payment amounts are reasonable and proper. Regarding late fees, we will consider a change to the existing policy and review recommended changes.
Program: AL 21.027 – COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – Allowability Grant Number & Year: SLFRP1965, March 3, 2021, through December 31, 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: 31 CFR § 35.6(b) (July 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts if the use meets the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or is enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; provided that, in case of a use of funds for a capital expenditure under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section, the use of funds must also meet the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Treasury may also articulate additional eligible programs, services, or capital expenditures from time to time that satisfy the eligibility criteria of this paragraph (b), which shall be eligible under this paragraph (b). (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure is eligible under this paragraph (b)(1) if a recipient identifies a harm or impact to a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts and the program, service, or capital expenditure responds to such harm. (ii) A program, service, or capital expenditure responds to a harm or impact experienced by an identified beneficiary or class of beneficiaries if it is reasonably designed to benefit the beneficiary or class of beneficiaries that experienced the harm or impact and is related and reasonably proportional to the extent and type of harm or impact experienced. * * * * (3) Enumerated eligible uses: Responses presumed reasonably proportional. A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts on a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries for one or more of the following purposes unless such use is grossly disproportionate to the harm caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts: * * * * (ii) Responding to the negative economic impacts of the public health emergency for purposes including: * * * * (D) Assistance to tourism, travel, hospitality, and other impacted industries for programs, services, or capital expenditures, including support for payroll costs and covered benefits for employees, compensating returning employees, support for operations and maintenance of existing equipment and facilities, and technical assistance[.] 31 CFR § 35.6(c) (July 1, 2023) states the following: Providing premium pay to eligible workers. A recipient may use funds to provide premium pay to eligible workers of the recipient who perform essential work or to provide grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work, provided that any premium pay or grants provided under this paragraph (c) must respond to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency. A recipient uses premium pay or grants provided under this paragraph (c) to respond to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency if: (1) The eligible worker’s total wages and remuneration, including the premium pay, is less than or equal to 150 percent of the greater of such eligible worker’s residing State’s or county’s average annual wage for all occupations as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics; (2) The eligible worker is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions (29 U.S.C. 207); or (3) The recipient has submitted to the Secretary a written justification that explains how providing premium pay to the eligible worker is responsive to the eligible worker performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency (such as a description of the eligible workers’ duties, health, or financial risks faced due to COVID–19, and why the recipient determined that the premium pay was responsive despite the worker’s higher income). [Emphasis added] 31 CFR § 35.3 (July 1, 2023) defines “premium pay,” in relevant part, as follows: Premium pay means an amount of up to $13 per hour that is paid to an eligible worker, in addition to wages or remuneration the eligible worker otherwise receives, for all work performed by the eligible worker during the COVID–19 public health emergency. Such amount may not exceed $25,000 in total over the period of performance with respect to any single eligible worker. H.J. Res 7 (2023) states the following: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, in Proclamation 9994 (85 Fed. Reg. 15337) is hereby terminated. Approved April 10, 2023. Additionally, the “Final Rule” was released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on January 6, 2022. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 1. General Provisions: Structure and Standards, a. Standards for Identifying a Public Health or Negative Economic Impact, Standards: Designating a Negative Economic Impact, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4344) First, there must be a negative economic impact, or an economic harm, experienced by an individual or a class. The recipient should assess whether, and the extent to which, there has been an economic harm, such as loss of earnings or revenue, that resulted from the COVID-19 public health emergency. A recipient should first consider whether an economic harm exists and then whether this harm was caused or made worse by the COVID-19 public health emergency. * * * * Second, the response must be designated to address the identified economic harm or impact resulting from or exacerbated by the public health emergency. In selecting responses, the recipient must assess whether, and the extent to which, the use would respond to or address this harm or impact. * * * * Responses must be reasonably designed to benefit the individual or class that experienced the negative economic impact or harm. Uses of funds should be assessed based on their responsiveness to their intended beneficiary and the ability of the response to address the impact or harm experienced by that beneficiary. Responses must also be related and reasonably proportional to the extent and type of harm experienced. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 4. General Provisions: Other, a. Public Sector Capacity and Workforce, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4386) The final rule allows for an expanded set of eligible uses to restore and support public sector employment. Eligible uses include hiring up to a pre-pandemic baseline that is adjusted for historic underinvestment in the public sector, providing additional funds for employees who experienced pay cuts or were furloughed, avoiding layoffs, providing worker retention incentives, and paying for ancillary administrative costs related to hiring. * * * * The final rule provides two options to restore pre-pandemic employment, depending on recipient’s needs. Under the first and simpler option, recipients may use SLFRF funds to rehire staff for pre-pandemic positions that were unfilled or were eliminated due the pandemic without undergoing further analysis. Under the second option, the final rule provides recipients an option to hire above the pre-pandemic baseline, by adjusting the pre-pandemic baseline for historical growth in public sector employment over time, as well as flexibility on roles for hire. * * * * To pursue the second option, recipients should undergo the analysis provided below. In short, this option allows recipients to pay for payroll and covered benefits associated with the recipient increasing its number of budgeted full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) up to 7.5 percent above its pre-pandemic employment baseline, which adjusts for the continued underinvestment in state and local governments since the Great Recession. * * * * Funds may be used to maintain current compensation levels, with adjustments for inflation, in order to prevent layoffs that would otherwise be necessary. Recipients must be able to substantiate that layoffs were likely in the absence of SLFRF funds and would be substantially due to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts (e.g., fiscal pressures on state and local budgets) and should document their assessment. * * * * Funds may be used to provide worker retention incentives, which are designed to persuade employees to remain with the employer as compared to other employment options. Recipients must be able to substantiate that the employees were likely to leave employment in the absence of the retention incentive and should document their assessment. * * * * All worker retention incentives must be narrowly tailored to need and should not exceed incentives traditionally offered by the recipient or compensation that alternative employers may offer to compete for the employees. Further, because retention incentives are intended to provide additional incentive to remain with the employer, they must be entirely additive to an employee’s regular rate of wages and other remuneration and may not be used to reduce or substitute for an employee’s normal earnings. Treasury will presume that retention incentives that are less than 25 percent of the rate of base pay for an individual employee or 10 percent for a group or category of employees are reasonably proportional to the need to retain employees, as long as the other requirements are met. The Final Rule, Footnote 230 states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4379) Ultimately, recipients must comply with the eligible use requirements and any other applicable laws or requirements and are responsible for the actions of their subrecipients or beneficiaries. Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2024), “[T]he Department of the Treasury adopts the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, set forth at 2 CFR part 200.” 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2024) states, 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. Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2024), costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award. Costs must also be adequately documented. Good internal control and sound business practices require procedures for ensuring that: 1) grants issued to beneficiaries are reasonable and proportional to the harm identified; 2) premium pay is paid to only eligible individuals; 3) expenditures are adequately supported; and 4) all expenditures are for allowable purposes. 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 State lacked procedures to ensure that: • Grants issued to beneficiaries for worker retention and incentives were used for such purposes. • Premium pay paid to eligible individuals was for work performed during the COVID-19 public health emergency. • Grants to beneficiaries were proportional to the negative economic harm incurred. • Funds used for behavioral healthcare programs were adequately documented. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as complete. Repeat Finding: 2023-061 Questioned Costs: $512,698 known Statistical Sample: No Context: We randomly selected 40 payments to test. We also judgmentally selected 16 payments and 10 journal entries to test. We noted the following: Payments to Nursing Facilities and Assisted-Living for Employee Retention and Recruitment Nebraska Legislative Bill (LB) 1014 (2022), section 28, appropriated $15,000,000 from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for State fiscal year 2024 to be paid out to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities. The funds were to be used to provide supplemental incentive payments for direct care staff members employed at the nursing facilities. DHHS paid out $15,000,000 to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities during State fiscal year 2024. LB 1412 (2024), section 24, appropriated $1,499,657 in CSLFRF funds to DHHS to be used to issue payments to rural assisted-living facilities. Per DHHS, these funds were intended to be used for employee retention and recruitment programs at the facilities. DHHS paid out $1,499,657 to assisted-living facilities during State fiscal year 2024. During testing of a random sample of 40 CSLFRF expenditures, we tested four payments made to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities, totaling $383,409. We asked for documentation of how DHHS ensured that the payments were used for allowable employee retention and recruitment programs, and for any documented assessments that were required by the Final Rule for worker incentive programs. According to DHHS, the funds were paid out in accordance with the requirements of LB 1014. Additionally, DHHS obtained signed attestations from all nursing facilities that received funds in which the facility attested that it is aware that funds provided can only be used to enhance employee recruitment and retention and that funds were used for said purpose. No other procedures were performed by DHHS to ensure that the nursing facilities were using the funds for eligible recruitment and retention purposes and DHHS failed to provide documentation supporting any of the assessments required by the CSLFRF Final Rule. Given the lack of procedures to support that funds were being used for allowable purposes, all four payments of the $383,409 tested are considered questioned costs. Additionally, we judgmentally selected one payment to an assisted living facility pursuant to LB 1412, section 24, totaling $54,464. Similar to the nursing facility payments tested, DHHS intends to have each assisted-living facility sign an affidavit attesting that the assisted-living facility is aware that funds provided can only be used to enhance employee recruitment and retention and that funds were used for said purpose. No other procedures were performed or planned to be performed. Therefore, the $54,464 payment tested is considered a questioned cost. We also noted that one nursing facility did not receive its proportional allocation of $131,839. Instead, that amount was split among the other nursing facilities that received payments. Assistance to the State Fair LB 1014, section 52, appropriated $20,000,000 to the Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) from the CSLFRF grant to be used to provide wastewater and drainage system updates at the State fairgrounds. The State Fair Board received a grant of $20,000,000, and we judgmentally selected one payment to the State Fair Board, totaling $798,092. Of the $20,000,000 grant, $14,705,610 was for stormwater and sewer infrastructure, and $5,294,390 was for aid to tourism due to experiencing negative economic harm due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Of the $5,249,390, however, the documentation on file only supported negative economic harm experienced of $4,539,525. Therefore, the grant award is not proportional to the harm experienced. As of June 30, 2024, only $1,396,267 of the portion for aid to tourism had been paid to the State Fair Board; therefore, we did not question costs. Payments to Schools, Child Care Providers, and Health Care Providers for Employee Premium Pay LB 1014, section 15, appropriated $10,000,000 to the Nebraska Department of Labor (NDOL) to be administered and distributed by NDOL through the recommendation of the Nebraska Worker Training Board. A portion of the $10,000,000 was being used for premium pay to teachers, child care providers, and nurses. NDOL paid out $5,277,250 to recipients for premium pay during the fiscal year. During our testing of a random sample of 40 CSLFRF payments, we tested four payments to recipients for premium pay, totaling $669,500. As part of NDOL’s procedures for reviewing requests for premium pay, NDOL had the entity provide the details of the employees that the premium pay was meant to benefit including name, hire date, and pay rate. NDOL had no procedures to verify the information submitted by the recipients to ensure that the employees met the eligibility requirements of 31 CFR § 35.6. Additionally, we noted that NDOL did not have any procedures in place after payments were issued to recipients to ensure that the premium pay was actually paid out to the employees they were intended to benefit. We asked NDOL to reach out to the recipients and subsequently provide us with underlying documentation for a selection of employees from the recipient. We noted that the employee information provided by the recipient was sufficient to determine eligibility and verify that individual employees received the premium pay that NDOL approved for them. However, for the four payments tested, we noted that premium pay was paid to 44 employees that were not hired until after the COVID-19 public health emergency ended or a few days prior to when the public health emergency ended on April 10, 2023. Premium pay paid to these individuals totaled $71,500, of which $70,250 was in-sample, and $1,250 was out-of-sample. The $71,500 is considered questioned costs. Behavioral Healthcare Programs LB 1014, section 24, appropriated $10,000,000 to DHHS to be distributed to local health departments for one-time infrastructure needs and any other costs including testing, personal protective equipment, and other preventative measures to combat the COVID-19 virus. We judgmentally selected one payment made pursuant to this purpose, totaling $367,699. Of the $367,699 tested, $3,325 was for backstage passes and zoo memberships purchased from the Henry Doorly Zoo. Per DHHS, these passes and memberships were used by program participants and employees of the local health department to facilitate non-traditional therapy methods, such as animal therapy and physical activity for the program participants. DHHS provided a list of 11 participants that supposedly used the passes and memberships; however, adequate documentation was not provided to support that those were the individuals that actually used the passes and memberships. We consider the $3,325 to be questioned costs. Total questioned costs from the random sample were $453,659. The total sample tested was $15,192,612, and the total sample population was $186,386,848. Based on the sample tested, the dollar error rate for the sample was 2.99% ($453,659/$15,192,612), which estimates the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2024 to be $5,572,967 (dollar error rate multiplied by the population). Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that grants to nursing and assisted-living facilities were used for allowable purposes, to ensure that premium pay was only paid to individuals employed during the COVID-19 public health emergency, and to obtain adequate documentation to verify that grants made were reasonably proportional to the negative economic harm experienced. Effect: Without adequate supporting documentation and review procedures, there is an increased risk that Federal awards could be used for unallowable costs. Recommendation: We recommend the State strengthen procedures for ensuring that all Federal funds are used for intended and allowable purposes. Management Response: Department of Health and Human Services DHHS agrees with the finding regarding payments to nursing facilities and assisted-living for employee retention and recruitment. DHHS does not disagree with APA’s characterization of the Behavioral Health Care program administered by Douglas County Health Department. However, DHHS provided the membership IDs purchased and contact details, including name, phone, email, and address, for every parent or guardian and the age of their minor children who participated in this behavioral health program. To the Department’s knowledge, APA did not follow up with any of these contacts. Department of Environment and Energy NDEE management in coordination/conjunction with the Department of Administrative Services Budget Team revisited the State Fair Board tourism loss calculation, taking the APA’s assessment into consideration. We agree with the APA’s assessment and recalculation of tourism loss in the amount of $4,539,525. Department of Labor Premium pay is additional hourly compensation paid to eligible workers in addition to their regular hourly wages for the heightened risk they faced during the COVID-19 pandemic as defined under the CSLFRF. It may be called “Premium Pay” in the NDOL Guidance document, but the payments were for “recruitment and retention” of workers which are not subject to the time restrictions of the declaration of the COVID-19 emergency. The 12-31-2024 obligation date applies to recruitment and retention grants. Teacher Recruitment and Retention Grant (“TRRG”) awards will fund premium pay as part of a strategy to support recruitment and retention of educators in high-demand positions. Nursing Recruitment and Retention Grant (“NRRG”) awards will fund premium pay as part of a strategy to support recruitment and retention of healthcare workers in high-demand positions. Premium pay will target registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) working in eligible practice settings. NRRG award recipients will be healthcare institutions and healthcare systems, and these recipients will commit to provide training and professional development to support the retention of the healthcare workers eligible for premium pay. NRRG funds will be used to make lump sum payments of premium pay wages of $2,500.00 to RNs, $1500 to LPNs, and $1000 to CNAs in eligible positions who remain employed as of January 9, 2024. APA Response: The health department is a subrecipient of DHHS. It is DHHS’s responsibility to ensure that subrecipients comply with the requirements of the Federal program. Adequate documentation, such as attestation forms or sign-in sheets, were not provided to support that the zoo memberships and passes were actually used by those individuals for the behavioral health program. The guidance document that the NDOL provided to the APA referred to these payments as “premium pay.” Under the CSLFRF Final Rule, the use of CSLFRF funds for the purposes of employee retention and recruitment requires, among other things, the recipient to be able to substantiate that employees were likely to leave in the absence of the retention incentive or that funds were used only to rehire roles that became vacant due to the COVID-19 pandemic or up to an adjustment pre-pandemic baseline. No documentation of such an analysis was provided to the APA.
Reference Number: 2024-002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (American Rescue Plan Act) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number Not Available Federal Award Year 2024 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Suspension and Debarment Award Period: 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance: 2 CFR 200.213 Suspension and Debarment restricts awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities. 2 CFR 180.300 states that an entity may determine suspension and debarment status by: (a) Checking SAM (System for Award Management) Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person (7) Distribution of work to individuals and firms or economic considerations. Control: Per 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should comply with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The County could not provide supporting documentation that suspension and debarment status was determined prior to award. Context: The suspension and debarment status for three out of seven vendors was not documented. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding as the vendors were not federally suspended or debarred. Cause: The County relied on State policies and procedures for suspension and debarment for State piggyback contracts, rather than applying their own established controls to these contracts. Effect: The County is not in compliance with federal suspension and debarment regulations. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of a finding in the immediate prior year. Prior year finding number was 2023-001. Recommendation: The County should ensure that established policies and procedures related to suspension and debarment are applied to all contracts, even for piggyback agreements adopted from the state. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The County regularly checks Sam.gov for suspension and debarment transactions. We relied on state policies and procedures regarding the contracts in question as they were piggyback contracts. Moving forward, we will ensure thorough documentation of our reviews to maintain diligence in this area.
Finding Number: 2024-004 State/Educational Agency(s): Arkansas Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 10.558 – Child and Adult Care Food Program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Award Number(s): 6AR300321 Federal Award Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding: Not applicable Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303(a) requires a non-federal entity to 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 award. 7 CFR § 226.11(a) states that a state agency may develop a policy under which centers are reimbursed for meals served in accordance with provisions of the Child and Adult Care Food Program in the calendar month preceding the calendar month in which the agreement is executed, or the state agency may develop a policy under which centers receive reimbursement only for meals served in approved centers on and after the effective date of the Program agreement. If the state agency's policy permits centers to earn reimbursement for meals served prior to the execution of a Program agreement, reimbursement must not be received by the center until the agreement is executed. Condition and Context: ALA discussion with Health and Nutrition Unit (HNU) staff indicated that applications for new and renewing applicants are completed online through the Special Nutrition Program (SNP) database. Supporting documentation is uploaded by the providers and reviewed by staff and program manager prior to application approval. The Agency allows retroactive reimbursements for new applicants after application approval only if the following requirements are met prior to the submission of a complete application: • Proper documentation required by the Program is maintained. • Provider attends training. HNU staff are responsible for the notation of eligible months for reimbursement in the database. The notation triggers the edit check to allow or prevent reimbursement claims. ALA reviewed 17 new applicants during state fiscal year 2024 to determine if all requirements were met prior to the payment of retroactive claims. This review revealed that four providers who did not meet the requirements for a retroactive claim were reimbursed a combined total of $10,823. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: $10,823 Cause: HNU staff did not ensure providers’ application reflected only eligible months for reimbursement prior to approval. Effect: Providers submitted claims for months in which eligibility requirements were not met. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency promptly develop, document, and implement procedures for internal control over compliance to ensure retroactive reimbursements are processed only for eligible program participants. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Health and Nutrition Unit (HNU), concur with the finding. The HNU implemented a new application and payment system that began in 2024. During implementation and subsequent operations, several issues with data transfers between the old and new system were identified and now corrected. The HNU Application and Finance staff will receive training to ensure that all criteria are met prior to the retroactive payment of claims. Anticipated Completion Date: April 1, 2025 Contact Person: Sheila Chastain Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education, DESE, Nutrition Services #4 Capitol Mall, Box #12 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9502 Sheila.Chastain@ade.arkansas.gov Pamela Burton Director Arkansas Department of Education, DESE, Nutrition Services #4 Capitol Mall, Box #19 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 320-8978 Pamela.Burton@ade.arkansas.gov
Finding Number: 2024-005 State/Educational Agency(s): Arkansas Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 10.558 – Child and Adult Care Food Program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Award Number(s): 6AR300321 Federal Award Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Cash Management Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding: A similar issue was report in prior year finding 2023-002. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.303(c), a non-federal entity must evaluate and monitor its compliance with statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards. In addition, 2 CFR § 200.400(a) and (b) state that the non-federal entity is responsible for efficient and effective administration of the federal award through the application of sound management practices and assumes responsibility for administering federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition and Context: The Agency receives the following separate grant awards for reimbursement payments to meal providers and sponsoring organizations: 1) Child Nutrition Program (CNP) Block Consolidated (ALN 10.555). 2) CNP Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Cash in Lieu (ALN 10.558). 3) CNP CACFP Sponsor Administrative (ALN 10.558). Previous correspondence between ALA and the federal awarding agency indicated that each grant award has a designated purpose, and funds are not to be used interchangeably among the grant awards. All expenditures are assigned a cost center and WBS element to identify the applicable federal program and cost category within AASIS, the State’s accounting system. The Agency’s Health and Nutrition Unit (HNU) staff are responsible for ensuring expenditures are properly coded in AASIS, and the federal finance staff utilize expenditure transactions in AASIS to complete cash draws for direct costs to the program. Expense corrections are completed and processed in AASIS by federal finance staff as needed. According to the Agency, corrective action was taken to ensure the accuracy of data from August 1, 2023 through January 31, 2024. ALA review of 10 cash draws to determine if funds were drawn from the appropriate grant revealed the following: • Sponsor Administrative expenditures (ALN 10.558) totaling $65,173 were inappropriately drawn from the CNP Block Consolidated grant (ALN 10.555). • As a result of expense corrections, Child Care and Development Block grant (ALN 93.575) expenditures were erroneously coded as CACFP expenditures and inappropriately drawn from the CNP Block Consolidated grant (ALN 10.555) and CNP CACFP Cash in Lieu (ALN 10.558), totaling $53,095 and $1,940, respectively. Note: Sponsor Administrative expenditures were appropriately drawn from the CNP CACFP Sponsor Administrative grant (ALN 10.558) beginning March 12, 2024. Additionally, on October 14, 2024, after auditor inquiry, federal finance staff completed fund transfers in AASIS to correct the coding of Child Care and Development Block grant expenditures. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: $120,208 Cause: CACFP sponsor administrative and child care expenditures were not properly coded in AASIS, causing funds to be drawn from the incorrect grant award. Effect: Funds were drawn for unallowable expenditures (based on the purpose of each grant). Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency establish and document procedures that specifically address the proper coding of expenditures in AASIS. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Division of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), Health and Nutrition Unit (HNU), concur with the finding. The HNU Finance staff implemented procedures for meal claim payment requests which include an initial and final review of all requests to be conducted by two (2) staff. The review process includes, but is not limited to, ensuring expenditures are assigned correct codes related to the appropriate funding source within the appropriate grant year, mitigating the Child Nutrition Program (CNP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Sponsor Administrative expenditure errors going forward. When the request is determined to be compliant, the Associate Director of Finance and Training approves payments before being forwarded to the ADE Finance team for payment. Anticipated Completion Date: March 15, 2025 Contact Person: Sheila Chastain Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education, DESE, Nutrition Services #4 Capitol Mall, Box #12 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9502 Sheila.Chastain@ade.arkansas.gov Pamela Burton Director Arkansas Department of Education, DESE, Nutrition Services #4 Capitol Mall, Box #19 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 320-8978 Pamela.Burton@ade.arkansas.gov
Finding Number: 2024-012 State/Educational Agency(s): Department of Commerce – Arkansas Rehabilitation Services Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 84.126 – Rehabilitation Services Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number(s): H126A230097 Federal Award Year(s): 2023 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Reporting Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding: Not applicable Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.303, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. In addition, Department of Education - Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provided guidance in its Dear Colleague Letter DCL-20-02 for grants entered into after federal fiscal year 2021 but prior to federal fiscal year 2024. Per this guidance, all reports except for the final report must be submitted 30 calendar days after the end of the reporting period. Condition and Context: ALA staff performed testing of all five RSA-17 reports, submitted by Arkansas Rehabilitation Services (ARS), to confirm accuracy and completeness of the reports. ALA staff review revealed that the RSA-17 report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024, for the federal fiscal year 2023 grant award, had not been submitted by the Agency at the time of audit fieldwork. This report was subsequently submitted on January 27, 2025, six months after the reporting due date of July 29, 2024. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: None Cause: The failure of Agency controls was caused by employee turnover in key positions and reduced oversight of reports. Effect: Lack of appropriate internal controls resulted in noncompliance with federal laws and regulations over reporting. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency strengthen controls over financial reporting compliance to ensure reports are submitted timely and in accordance with federal laws and regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: ARS Discussion The Agency acknowledges the failure to adequately submit the RSA-17 report for the quarter ending June 30, 2024, for the federal fiscal year 2023 grant award. ARS Action Taken The Agency has taken the below steps to mitigate oversight of reporting deadlines and lack of internal controls. • ARS fiscal has hired three additional staff members whose purpose will be in-part to collect, interpret, and submit data with regards to RSA17 reports. • A RSA17 policy was submitted RSA in January 2025. This policy speaks to enhanced ARS internal controls for timeliness of collecting data, and oversight to ensure proper preparation and submission of these federal financial reports moving forward. These include multi personnel responsibility checks for collection at minimum one week prior to report submission with Manager and Deputy Commissioner to ensure data collection and submission are on-time. Anticipated Completion Date: Complete Contact Person: April Cooper Deputy Director of Finance Arkansas Department of Commerce 1 Commerce Way Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 682-4771 April.Cooper@Arkansas.gov
Finding Number: 2024-013 State/Educational Agency(s): Department of Commerce – Arkansas Rehabilitation Services Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 84.126 – Rehabilitation Services Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number(s): H126A230097; H126A240097-24C Federal Award Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Reporting Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding: Not Applicable Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.303, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Also, per 34 CFR § 361.12, the state agency must ensure the proper and efficient administration of the plan and the carrying out of all functions for which the State is responsible under the plan and this part of 34 CFR. These methods must include procedures to ensure accurate data collection and financial accountability. Finally, per Department of Education - Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Policy Directive PD-19-03, “the use of an electronic case management system, does not remove the requirement for the agency to maintain either hard copies or scanned copies of required supporting documentation in the individual's service record.” Condition and Context: The Agency did not have appropriate controls in place to support the maintenance of documentation supporting the RSA-911 quarterly reports. Of the 37 cases tested by ALA, 22 included report elements that could not be verified by ALA or were incorrectly reported. Errors noted during testing were as follows: • In 21 cases, the application date reported could not be traced to the application signed by the client. • In 16 cases, the Agency could not provide an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE), signed by the client, to support the date of initial IPE. • In 2 cases, the date of eligibility determination was not supported by appropriate documentation. • In 2 cases, the initial IPE date was incorrectly reported. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: None Cause: Controls were not in place to ensure that client files were properly migrated from an older case management system to a newer case management system during a software conversion. Effect: Lack of appropriate internal controls resulted in noncompliance with federal laws and regulations over reporting. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency strengthen controls over reporting by performing a review of client files to ensure data elements are accurately recorded in the new case management system for the required reporting elements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: ARS Discussion The Agency acknowledges the lack of adequate internal controls necessary to ensure accurate maintenance of supporting documentation during our migration to our new case management system (CMS). ARS Action Taken The Agency has taken the below steps to mitigate the lack of internal controls regarding supporting documentation, mainly attachments, located in our CMS in the future. • As the transfer of data to our new CMS platform concludes, that impediment has significantly diminished. The Agency has an appropriate method of control in place to detect any case file errors that may occur because of an incomplete retrieval or an insufficient data element input. In both instances, data analyst personnel from Program, Planning, Development and Evaluation (PPD&E) employ RSA’s edit check process that identifies specific errors prior to submission of the RSA 911 report. Those errors are then methodically corrected in our CMS ensuring the RSA 911 report is error free. • In instances where information is miscoded in the client case file, or is missing, the division’s Quality Assurance (QA) team identifies those errors and employes best practice training methods to ensure the case file complies with federal regulations. • Finally, our new CMS data hosted on an AR DIS platform is regularly backed up on a separate server to ensure that if anything were to happen to the primary CMS, we have a back up of all case data, including supporting documentation, and attachments. This data would be able to be accessed as a backup if data in the CMS was compromised in any way. Anticipated Completion Date: Complete Contact Person: Robert Trevino Associate Commissioner of PPD&E Arkansas Rehabilitation Services 1 Commerce Way Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 296-1604 Robert.Trevino@Arkansas.gov
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 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 7 CFR 245.3(c) sates in part: Each School Food Authority shall serve free and reduced price meals or free milk in the respective programs to children eligible under its eligibility criteria. 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 14 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. The lack of review was isolated to paper applications. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 7 CFR 245.3(c) sates in part: Each School Food Authority shall serve free and reduced price meals or free milk in the respective programs to children eligible under its eligibility criteria. 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 14 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. The lack of review was isolated to paper applications. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 7 CFR 245.3(c) sates in part: Each School Food Authority shall serve free and reduced price meals or free milk in the respective programs to children eligible under its eligibility criteria. 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 14 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. The lack of review was isolated to paper applications. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Material Noncompliance, Qualified Opinion 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements. Effect: The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: $17,811 (Known). Context: During testing we noted the following issues in a sample of forty child nutrition cluster payroll claims: • 6 of 40 payroll transactions where a timecard was not completed by the employee to validate their hours worked and the time charged to food service. • 19 of 40 payroll transactions where the School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for approval of the hourly rate paid to employee. The noncompliance was isolated to the payroll periods through August 4, 2023. The School Corporation corrected the issues starting with the next payroll period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management ensure all amounts paid to employees are supported by an approved rate schedule. Additionally, we recommend that School Corporation ensure timecards are completed and reviewed to support all time charged to the program. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Material Noncompliance, Qualified Opinion 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements. Effect: The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: $17,811 (Known). Context: During testing we noted the following issues in a sample of forty child nutrition cluster payroll claims: • 6 of 40 payroll transactions where a timecard was not completed by the employee to validate their hours worked and the time charged to food service. • 19 of 40 payroll transactions where the School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for approval of the hourly rate paid to employee. The noncompliance was isolated to the payroll periods through August 4, 2023. The School Corporation corrected the issues starting with the next payroll period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management ensure all amounts paid to employees are supported by an approved rate schedule. Additionally, we recommend that School Corporation ensure timecards are completed and reviewed to support all time charged to the program. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness, Material Noncompliance, Qualified Opinion 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements. Effect: The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: $17,811 (Known). Context: During testing we noted the following issues in a sample of forty child nutrition cluster payroll claims: • 6 of 40 payroll transactions where a timecard was not completed by the employee to validate their hours worked and the time charged to food service. • 19 of 40 payroll transactions where the School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for approval of the hourly rate paid to employee. The noncompliance was isolated to the payroll periods through August 4, 2023. The School Corporation corrected the issues starting with the next payroll period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management ensure all amounts paid to employees are supported by an approved rate schedule. Additionally, we recommend that School Corporation ensure timecards are completed and reviewed to support all time charged to the program. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 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). . . ." 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 cash management compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements. 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: We noted that for all sponsor claim reimbursements in a sample of four claims, the sponsor claim reimbursement was prepared without a secondary, documented review before the submission of the claim to ensure the accuracy of the sponsor claim reimbursement summary. Identification as a repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit. The prior finding number was 2022-003. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management review internal controls surrounding the claim reimbursement process. The secondary, documented review of the request for reimbursement should include a review of the underlying meal count reports to ensure the claim reimbursement request is accurate and complete. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 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). . . ." 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 cash management compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements. 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: We noted that for all sponsor claim reimbursements in a sample of four claims, the sponsor claim reimbursement was prepared without a secondary, documented review before the submission of the claim to ensure the accuracy of the sponsor claim reimbursement summary. Identification as a repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit. The prior finding number was 2022-003. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management review internal controls surrounding the claim reimbursement process. The secondary, documented review of the request for reimbursement should include a review of the underlying meal count reports to ensure the claim reimbursement request is accurate and complete. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 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). . . ." 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 cash management compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements. 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: We noted that for all sponsor claim reimbursements in a sample of four claims, the sponsor claim reimbursement was prepared without a secondary, documented review before the submission of the claim to ensure the accuracy of the sponsor claim reimbursement summary. Identification as a repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit. The prior finding number was 2022-003. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management review internal controls surrounding the claim reimbursement process. The secondary, documented review of the request for reimbursement should include a review of the underlying meal count reports to ensure the claim reimbursement request is accurate and complete. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-005 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 5 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. Additionally, we noted 4 instances where the School Corporation was unable to provide the application. The issues were isolated to paper applications Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-005 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 5 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. Additionally, we noted 4 instances where the School Corporation was unable to provide the application. The issues were isolated to paper applications Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-005 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2023, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility 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). . . ." 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 eligibility compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements. 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: During sample testing of 60 students for eligibility, we noted 5 instances where there was no documented review by someone other than the individual making the eligibility determination. Additionally, we noted 4 instances where the School Corporation was unable to provide the application. The issues were isolated to paper applications Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls related to the grant agreement and eligibility compliance requirements. 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.
FINDING 2024-008 Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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). . . ." 29 CFR 5.5 states in part: (1) Minimum wages. (i) All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or under the United States Housing Act of 1937 or under the Housing Act of 1949 in the construction or development of the project), will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of wages and bona fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor and such laborers and mechanics… (3)(ii)(A) The contractor shall submit weekly for each week in which any contract work is performed a copy of all payrolls to the (write in name of appropriate federal agency) if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such a party, the contractor will submit the payrolls to the applicant, sponsor, or owner, as the case may be, for transmission to the (write in name of agency). 2 CFR 200 Appendix II states in part: In addition to other provisions required by the Federal agency or non-Federal entity; all contracts made by the non-Federal entity under the Federal award must contain provisions covering the following, as applicable. . . . (D) Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by non-Federal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, “Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction”). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week.. . .” Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements compliance requirement. 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: For the one project subject to Davis-Bacon requirements, the School Corporation did not obtain the weekly payroll reports certifications from the company that performed renovations on the School Corporation. Therefore, no review was performed to ensure that pay rates complied with the federal wage rate requirements. Additionally, the School Corporation did not have a contract with the company that included the clauses for the federal wage rate requirements. The amount disbursed and reported on the SEFA during the audit period is $64,720. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommend the School Corporation implement a formal process to ensure the required weekly payroll reports certifications are collected and reviewed to ensure compliance with the wage rate requirements. Additionally, we recommend the School Corporation implement a formal process to ensure the contracts including labor costs over $2,000 funded by federal awards have Davis Bacon wage rate requirement clause in written contract. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-001 Untimely Return of Title IV Funds/Federal Department:US Department of Education/CFDA Numbers: 84.268/Cluster Name: Student Financial Assistance Cluster/Programs:Federal Direct Student Loans/Awards Numbers:P268K231372, P268K241372/Questioned Cost: None/Program Expenditures: $17,886,002 Olivet Nazarene University (University) did not return Title IV funds to the Department of Education (Department) within 45 days after the date of the University’s determination that a student withdrew. During our testing of 25 students who withdrew from the University during the year, it was noted that two students’ (8%) Direct Unsubsidized loan funds were not timely returned to the Department. The University’s dates of determination the students withdrew were November 7, 2023 and November 13, 2023; however, the University did not return the students’ unearned Direct Unsubsidized loan funds to the Department until January 18, 2024 (21 and 27 days late). The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. The Code of Federal Regulations (34 CFR 668.22(j)(1)) states an institution must return the amount of Title IV funds for which it is responsible as soon as possible but no later than 45 days after the date of the institution’s determination that the student withdrew. The Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.303) requires nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures to ensure that unearned Title IV funds are returned to the Department in a timely manner. University officials stated both untimely return of Title IV funds (R2T4’s) were due to conflicts, including the Christmas/New Year’s two week break. The committee meets every other Wednesday. Both R2T4’s were done on-time, but the review was delayed due to travel of two of the members. When the committee met, an error was found in the denominator, and were sent back for revision, and completed the next meeting. Because that occurred in January, the process was late. The University believes this was an isolated incident based on the timing of the campus shut-down. Failure to timely return unearned Title IV funds to the Department may jeopardize future Federal funding. (Finding Code No. 2024-001, 2023-002) RECOMMENDATION We recommend the University timely return to the Department the amount of title IV funds for which it is responsible after the University has determined a student has withdrawn. UNIVERSITY RESPONSE The University agrees with the finding and will implement a new process to review all R2T4’s weekly, instead of the current bi-weekly process. In addition, if any committee members are absent, the remaining members will review the R2T4’s on the scheduled dates.
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.
FA 2024-001 Improve Controls over Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Numbers and Titles: 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States 84.173 – Special Education Preschool Grants Federal Award Numbers: H027A220073 (Year: 2022), H027A230073 (Year: 2023), H173A230081 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $44,955.00 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Special Education Cluster (SEC), which is comprised of the Special Education Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) and Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) programs, was authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SEC funding is available to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. SEC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local education agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. SEC funds totaling $1,949,036.43 were expended and reported on the City of Valdosta Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Furthermore, Title 2 CFR Section 180.300 states in part that the non-federal entity must “verify that the entity with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You can do this by: (a) Checking System for Awards Management (SAM) exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from the entity; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity.” Lastly, the School District’s applicable purchasing policy required at least two competitive prices if the price of the “…equipment, materials, or services…” exceed $1,000.00. The Valdosta City Schools Federal Programs Procedures Manual also states, “The Program Director is responsible for archiving source documentation of each purchase, such as hard copy Purchase Order Forms, printed electronic copies of Purchase Orders, quotes, sole source documentation, and Suspension and Debarment documentation.” Condition: The School District could not provide contract files or documentation for the selection or approval of one vendor that provided a software application associated with one Special Education Cluster procurement transaction. Therefore, auditors were unable to determine if the procurement transaction complied with the School District's procurement procedures, proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts, and appropriate reviews were performed to verify that vendors were not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into covered transactions. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $44,955.00 were identified for procurements that were not supported by adequate documentation. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. The following Assistance Listing Number was affected by known questioned costs: 84.027. Cause: The School District’s purchasing policy that was valid when the expenditures took place was not followed due to oversight. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Improve Controls over Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Numbers and Titles: 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States 84.173 – Special Education Preschool Grants Federal Award Numbers: H027A220073 (Year: 2022), H027A230073 (Year: 2023), H173A230081 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $44,955.00 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Special Education Cluster (SEC), which is comprised of the Special Education Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) and Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) programs, was authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SEC funding is available to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. SEC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local education agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. SEC funds totaling $1,949,036.43 were expended and reported on the City of Valdosta Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Furthermore, Title 2 CFR Section 180.300 states in part that the non-federal entity must “verify that the entity with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You can do this by: (a) Checking System for Awards Management (SAM) exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from the entity; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity.” Lastly, the School District’s applicable purchasing policy required at least two competitive prices if the price of the “…equipment, materials, or services…” exceed $1,000.00. The Valdosta City Schools Federal Programs Procedures Manual also states, “The Program Director is responsible for archiving source documentation of each purchase, such as hard copy Purchase Order Forms, printed electronic copies of Purchase Orders, quotes, sole source documentation, and Suspension and Debarment documentation.” Condition: The School District could not provide contract files or documentation for the selection or approval of one vendor that provided a software application associated with one Special Education Cluster procurement transaction. Therefore, auditors were unable to determine if the procurement transaction complied with the School District's procurement procedures, proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts, and appropriate reviews were performed to verify that vendors were not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into covered transactions. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $44,955.00 were identified for procurements that were not supported by adequate documentation. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. The following Assistance Listing Number was affected by known questioned costs: 84.027. Cause: The School District’s purchasing policy that was valid when the expenditures took place was not followed due to oversight. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Improve Controls over Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Numbers and Titles: 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States 84.173 – Special Education Preschool Grants Federal Award Numbers: H027A220073 (Year: 2022), H027A230073 (Year: 2023), H173A230081 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $44,955.00 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Special Education Cluster (SEC), which is comprised of the Special Education Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) and Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) programs, was authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SEC funding is available to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. SEC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local education agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. SEC funds totaling $1,949,036.43 were expended and reported on the City of Valdosta Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Furthermore, Title 2 CFR Section 180.300 states in part that the non-federal entity must “verify that the entity with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You can do this by: (a) Checking System for Awards Management (SAM) exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from the entity; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity.” Lastly, the School District’s applicable purchasing policy required at least two competitive prices if the price of the “…equipment, materials, or services…” exceed $1,000.00. The Valdosta City Schools Federal Programs Procedures Manual also states, “The Program Director is responsible for archiving source documentation of each purchase, such as hard copy Purchase Order Forms, printed electronic copies of Purchase Orders, quotes, sole source documentation, and Suspension and Debarment documentation.” Condition: The School District could not provide contract files or documentation for the selection or approval of one vendor that provided a software application associated with one Special Education Cluster procurement transaction. Therefore, auditors were unable to determine if the procurement transaction complied with the School District's procurement procedures, proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts, and appropriate reviews were performed to verify that vendors were not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into covered transactions. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $44,955.00 were identified for procurements that were not supported by adequate documentation. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. The following Assistance Listing Number was affected by known questioned costs: 84.027. Cause: The School District’s purchasing policy that was valid when the expenditures took place was not followed due to oversight. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, 22619-043-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023 the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The nonpublic expenditures spent did not meet the earmarking requirements for grant award numbers 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP. From the beginning of the grant awards until September 2022, total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. Beginning in September 2022, the Cooperative began tracking expenditures by member school for the nonpublic services. As such we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE from the beginning of the grant awards through September 2022, as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-043-PN01, 2611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Through inquiry of Cooperative management, they were unaware of the requirements to track nonpublic proportionate share expenditures directly for each member school. While the Cooperative did implement new processes and procedures to ensure expenditures were tracked by member school starting in September 2022, most of the grant awards had been allocated to the member schools based on a percentage of the budget. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation was unable to ensure Cooperative compliance with earmarking requirements and the Cooperative was unable to track expenditures for nonpublic services for each member school. Consequently, the amounts requested for reimbursement were not supported by actual expenditures, but rather a percentage based on the budget per member school. Because of this, expenditures were not accurately reported to the oversight agency. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require tracking of actual nonpublic proportionate share expenditures by member school by the Cooperative. Documentation should be maintained to show how these expenditures are being tracked to ensure compliance with the Earmarking compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, 22619-043-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023 the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The nonpublic expenditures spent did not meet the earmarking requirements for grant award numbers 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP. From the beginning of the grant awards until September 2022, total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. Beginning in September 2022, the Cooperative began tracking expenditures by member school for the nonpublic services. As such we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE from the beginning of the grant awards through September 2022, as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-043-PN01, 2611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Through inquiry of Cooperative management, they were unaware of the requirements to track nonpublic proportionate share expenditures directly for each member school. While the Cooperative did implement new processes and procedures to ensure expenditures were tracked by member school starting in September 2022, most of the grant awards had been allocated to the member schools based on a percentage of the budget. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation was unable to ensure Cooperative compliance with earmarking requirements and the Cooperative was unable to track expenditures for nonpublic services for each member school. Consequently, the amounts requested for reimbursement were not supported by actual expenditures, but rather a percentage based on the budget per member school. Because of this, expenditures were not accurately reported to the oversight agency. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require tracking of actual nonpublic proportionate share expenditures by member school by the Cooperative. Documentation should be maintained to show how these expenditures are being tracked to ensure compliance with the Earmarking compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, 22619-043-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023 the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The nonpublic expenditures spent did not meet the earmarking requirements for grant award numbers 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP. From the beginning of the grant awards until September 2022, total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. Beginning in September 2022, the Cooperative began tracking expenditures by member school for the nonpublic services. As such we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE from the beginning of the grant awards through September 2022, as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-043-PN01, 2611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Through inquiry of Cooperative management, they were unaware of the requirements to track nonpublic proportionate share expenditures directly for each member school. While the Cooperative did implement new processes and procedures to ensure expenditures were tracked by member school starting in September 2022, most of the grant awards had been allocated to the member schools based on a percentage of the budget. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation was unable to ensure Cooperative compliance with earmarking requirements and the Cooperative was unable to track expenditures for nonpublic services for each member school. Consequently, the amounts requested for reimbursement were not supported by actual expenditures, but rather a percentage based on the budget per member school. Because of this, expenditures were not accurately reported to the oversight agency. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require tracking of actual nonpublic proportionate share expenditures by member school by the Cooperative. Documentation should be maintained to show how these expenditures are being tracked to ensure compliance with the Earmarking compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, 22619-043-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023 the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The nonpublic expenditures spent did not meet the earmarking requirements for grant award numbers 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP. From the beginning of the grant awards until September 2022, total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. Beginning in September 2022, the Cooperative began tracking expenditures by member school for the nonpublic services. As such we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE from the beginning of the grant awards through September 2022, as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-043-PN01, 2611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Through inquiry of Cooperative management, they were unaware of the requirements to track nonpublic proportionate share expenditures directly for each member school. While the Cooperative did implement new processes and procedures to ensure expenditures were tracked by member school starting in September 2022, most of the grant awards had been allocated to the member schools based on a percentage of the budget. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation was unable to ensure Cooperative compliance with earmarking requirements and the Cooperative was unable to track expenditures for nonpublic services for each member school. Consequently, the amounts requested for reimbursement were not supported by actual expenditures, but rather a percentage based on the budget per member school. Because of this, expenditures were not accurately reported to the oversight agency. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require tracking of actual nonpublic proportionate share expenditures by member school by the Cooperative. Documentation should be maintained to show how these expenditures are being tracked to ensure compliance with the Earmarking compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, 22619-043-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023 the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The nonpublic expenditures spent did not meet the earmarking requirements for grant award numbers 22611-043-PN01, 22611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP. From the beginning of the grant awards until September 2022, total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. Beginning in September 2022, the Cooperative began tracking expenditures by member school for the nonpublic services. As such we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE from the beginning of the grant awards through September 2022, as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-043-PN01, 2611-043-ARP, and 22619-043-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Through inquiry of Cooperative management, they were unaware of the requirements to track nonpublic proportionate share expenditures directly for each member school. While the Cooperative did implement new processes and procedures to ensure expenditures were tracked by member school starting in September 2022, most of the grant awards had been allocated to the member schools based on a percentage of the budget. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation was unable to ensure Cooperative compliance with earmarking requirements and the Cooperative was unable to track expenditures for nonpublic services for each member school. Consequently, the amounts requested for reimbursement were not supported by actual expenditures, but rather a percentage based on the budget per member school. Because of this, expenditures were not accurately reported to the oversight agency. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require tracking of actual nonpublic proportionate share expenditures by member school by the Cooperative. Documentation should be maintained to show how these expenditures are being tracked to ensure compliance with the Earmarking compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT, and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance awards exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT, and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance awards exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT, and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance awards exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT, and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance awards exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Equipment and Real Property Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425U Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Equipment and Real Property Management compliance requirement. A property record or capital asset listing is required to be maintained for all equipment, property improvements, and property purchased with the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) grant awards to ensure adequate safeguards are in place to prevent loss or damage of items. The School Corporation hired a consultant to compile and provide a fixed asset report that contained all inventory and assets purchased that exceeded the School Corporation's capitalization threshold. The consultant prepared the report; however, the School Corporation did not have any policies or procedures in place to review the asset listing to ensure the listing was complete. The School Corporation's capital asset listing did not include all the required asset information for assets purchased with federal awards. The following information for each asset was not included in the School Corporations capital asset listing: the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number (FAIN)), and percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired. The School Corporation purchased five capital assets totaling $118,845.73 with ESSER III funds. Of the five assets purchased, four were not included on the asset listing. The one asset that was included in the asset listing did not list the source of the federal funding including the federal award number. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: ". . . (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(e) states in part: "When original or replacement equipment acquired under a Federal award is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a Federal awarding agency, except as otherwise provided in Federal statutes, regulations, or Federal awarding agency disposition instructions, the non-Federal entity must request disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency if required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not develop a system of internal controls to ensure that all items over the capital asset threshold were added to the listing, the capital asset listing included all required information, and that items purchased were properly maintained and safeguarded. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure asset records include all the necessary information, new assets are properly added, disposals are properly documented, and any discrepancies are reconciled. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Equipment and Real Property Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425U Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Equipment and Real Property Management compliance requirement. A property record or capital asset listing is required to be maintained for all equipment, property improvements, and property purchased with the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) grant awards to ensure adequate safeguards are in place to prevent loss or damage of items. The School Corporation hired a consultant to compile and provide a fixed asset report that contained all inventory and assets purchased that exceeded the School Corporation's capitalization threshold. The consultant prepared the report; however, the School Corporation did not have any policies or procedures in place to review the asset listing to ensure the listing was complete. The School Corporation's capital asset listing did not include all the required asset information for assets purchased with federal awards. The following information for each asset was not included in the School Corporations capital asset listing: the source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number (FAIN)), and percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired. The School Corporation purchased five capital assets totaling $118,845.73 with ESSER III funds. Of the five assets purchased, four were not included on the asset listing. The one asset that was included in the asset listing did not list the source of the federal funding including the federal award number. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: ". . . (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 SCHOOL CITY OF HOBART SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(e) states in part: "When original or replacement equipment acquired under a Federal award is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a Federal awarding agency, except as otherwise provided in Federal statutes, regulations, or Federal awarding agency disposition instructions, the non-Federal entity must request disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency if required by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." Cause The School Corporation did not develop a system of internal controls to ensure that all items over the capital asset threshold were added to the listing, the capital asset listing included all required information, and that items purchased were properly maintained and safeguarded. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure asset records include all the necessary information, new assets are properly added, disposals are properly documented, and any discrepancies are reconciled. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Defense Program/Cluster: Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Responding to Threats to the Resilience of a Military Installation Federal Assistance Listing Number: 12.003 Award No.: MIR1973-22-01 Award Year: 2023 Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort and Earmarking Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Instance of Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. 2 CFR 200.430(g)(4) Salaries and wages of employees used in meeting cost sharing requirements on Federal awards must be supported in the same manner as salaries and wages claimed for reimbursement from Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.306(f) requires that if services furnished by a third-party organization are claimed as a cost-sharing match, these services must be valued at the employee’s regular rate of pay, plus an amount of fringe benefits that is reasonable, necessary, allocable, and otherwise allowable. Condition: We noted personnel services furnished by third-party organizations totaled $31,025 for the life of the grant, including $10,854 in fiscal year 2024. For the services furnished by third-party organizations as a local match of costs, the City valued the personnel time based on budgeted rates. The City could not provide documentation supporting the actual cost incurred by the third-party organization to support the in-kind services claimed. Cause: The City’s policies and procedures for in-kind services furnished by third-party organizations toward the grant did not include obtaining documentation to support the actual costs incurred and value of services claimed. Effect: The City did not comply with required local match of expenses for the grant. Questioned Costs: We identified questioned costs totaling $2,435 for unsubstantiated costs furnished by third-party organizations claimed as local cost share expenditures. Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 13 out of 54 local cost share expenditures were tested. This represents $9,114 of local cost share expenditures out of a total of $46,809 incurred for fiscal year 2024. Upon further investigation, the questioned costs were isolated to contributed services furnished by third-party organizations which totaled $10,854 in the fiscal year 2024. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No. Recommendation: We recommend the City establish policies and procedures and documentation standards to comply with the Uniform Guidance standards for documentation of personnel expenses used to meet the local share of expenses. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding. See separate corrective action plan.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Defense Program/Cluster: Community Economic Adjustment Assistance for Responding to Threats to the Resilience of a Military Installation Federal Assistance Listing Number: 12.003 Award No.: MIR1973-22-01 Award Year: 2023 Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Material Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Title 2 CFR Section 200.214 of the Uniform Guidance states that the City must comply with 2 CFR part 180, which implements Executive Orders 12549 and 12689. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities. Per 2 CFR Section 180.300, when a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-Federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1)checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the GeneralServices Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/SAM/, (2) collecting acertification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction withthat entity. 2 CFR 200.318(i) Procurement records. The recipient or subrecipient must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of each procurement transaction. These records must include the rationale for the procurement method, contract type selection, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The City’s grant policy, chapter 100 of the City’s administrative policy, section 34 states that contracts valued between $3,500 to $150,000 allow for informal procurement methods but requires that price or rate quotes must be obtained (and kept on hand for audit purposes) from an adequate number of qualified sources. 2 CFR 200.327 requires that the recipient's or subrecipient's contracts must contain the applicable provisions described in Appendix II of 2 CFR 200. Condition: During our testing of the City’s provisions for procurement requirements, we noted the following: 1)For two (2) of two (2) contracts selecting for testing there was no evidence that the Cityverified the entity was not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participatingin the transaction, prior to entering the contract. Upon our search, none of the vendorswere suspended or debarred. 2)For one (1) of two (2) contracts selected for testing with a contract value of $103,800, theCity did not document the history of the procurement, including the rationale for themethod of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and thebasis for the contract price. 3)For two (2) out of two (2) contracts selected for testing, the City did not include allapplicable provisions described in 2 CFR 200 Appendix II. Cause: The City did not follow their policy to verify the information described in the condition prior to entering the transactions. The City did not follow their policy documenting the history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. The City’s policy does not include the requirement to include all applicable provisions identified in 2 CFR 200 Appendix II in its contracts. Effect: Failure to implement and maintain a proper control process could result in payments to vendors that are suspended or debarred or improper awarding of contracts under the procurement guidance. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified. Context/Sampling: We tested 100% of the procurement transactions. This represented a total of $1,323,800 in contracted services under the grant. $862,375 was paid for contracted services in fiscal year 2024. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No. Recommendation: We recommend the City strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure that the verification of the debarment and suspension is documented and retained, the history of procurement transactions is documented and retained in its official records, and that contracts include all applicable provisions of 2 CFR 200 Appendix II. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding. See separate corrective action plan.
FA 2024-001 Improve Controls over Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 84.027 – Special Education Grants to State 84.173 – Special Education Preschool Grants Federal Award Numbers: H027A220073 (Year 2023), H027A230073 (Year 2024) H173A220081 (Year 2023), H173A230081 (Year 2024) Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background: The Special Education Cluster (SEC), which is comprised of the Special Education Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) and Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) programs, was created by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). SEC funding is available to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them, a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. SEC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local education agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. SEC funds totaling $404,087.80 were expended and reported on the Marion County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures, which reflects applicable State and local laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources…” Furthermore Title 2 CFR Section 180.300 state in part that the non-federal entity must “verify that the entity with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You can do this by: (a) Checking System for Awards Management (SAM) exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from the entity; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity.” Condition: A sample of eight procurement transactions was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These transactions were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented, and applicable compliance requirements were met. The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for one small purchase expenditure reviewed. While auditors were able to perform procedures to determine that the expenditure ultimately qualified as a sole source purchase, appropriate documentation was not maintained on file to support the rationale to limit competition. Additionally, a sample of two covered transactions was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These transactions were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and if suspension and debarment requirements were met. While auditors were able to determine that the vendor associated with these transactions was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, documentation could not be provided to support the entity’s verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction as is required by the School District’s internal policies and procedures. Cause: In discussing the deficiencies with management, they stated that these are isolated incidents where the vendors were considered sole source because of the specialized services they provided, and as result, the procedures were not followed due to oversight. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures in the future. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement and suspension and debarment procedures are followed, and appropriate documentation is obtained and retained on-file. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding