(2024-061) Title: Internal control over CCDF period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 98.60; American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, Section 2201(a) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Discretionary liquidation period regulations require the Department to liquidate grant funds within one year of the required obligation date. Section 2201(a) of the ARP Act requires CCDF Discretionary supplemental funds to be obligated in Federal fiscal year 2021 or the succeeding two fiscal years. The Department must obligate supplemental funds by September 30, 2023. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS utilizes the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Service Center to collaboratively process CCDF expenditures, which includes dual review and approval of program grant coding and periods of performance. The Departments are required to ensure expenditures are obligated and liquidated within the required timeframes for each grant. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified 11 significant CCDF expenditure transactions for grants that had obligation and liquidation periods ending during fiscal year 2024. OSA found four payroll transactions charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds totaling $5,321, for payroll costs incurred, and thus obligated, subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA tested 37 CCDF expenditure adjustments in fiscal year 2024 and found two adjustments totaling $2,952, charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds during the liquidation period that represented expenditures incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed analytical procedures over all fiscal year 2024 expenditure adjustments and found 14 additional adjustments totaling $4,492, all allocated to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds, for expenditures that were incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OCFS’ and DHHS Service Center’s existing review and approval procedures are not adequate, as unallowable costs totaling $12,765 for expenditures outside of the required period of performance were charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended approximately $52 million in CCDF program funds. Approximately $6 million of total CCDF program expenditures were CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds with a required obligation date of September 30, 2023. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that obligations of grant funds are made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist by April 30, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1114-03)
(2024-061) Title: Internal control over CCDF period of performance needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Period of performance Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 98.60; American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, Section 2201(a) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Discretionary liquidation period regulations require the Department to liquidate grant funds within one year of the required obligation date. Section 2201(a) of the ARP Act requires CCDF Discretionary supplemental funds to be obligated in Federal fiscal year 2021 or the succeeding two fiscal years. The Department must obligate supplemental funds by September 30, 2023. Condition: The CCDF program is administered by the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and provides funding to increase the availability, affordability, and quality of childcare services in the State. OCFS utilizes the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Service Center to collaboratively process CCDF expenditures, which includes dual review and approval of program grant coding and periods of performance. The Departments are required to ensure expenditures are obligated and liquidated within the required timeframes for each grant. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified 11 significant CCDF expenditure transactions for grants that had obligation and liquidation periods ending during fiscal year 2024. OSA found four payroll transactions charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds totaling $5,321, for payroll costs incurred, and thus obligated, subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA tested 37 CCDF expenditure adjustments in fiscal year 2024 and found two adjustments totaling $2,952, charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds during the liquidation period that represented expenditures incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. OSA performed analytical procedures over all fiscal year 2024 expenditure adjustments and found 14 additional adjustments totaling $4,492, all allocated to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds, for expenditures that were incurred subsequent to the required obligation date; therefore, the costs are deemed unallowable. OCFS’ and DHHS Service Center’s existing review and approval procedures are not adequate, as unallowable costs totaling $12,765 for expenditures outside of the required period of performance were charged to CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the Department expended approximately $52 million in CCDF program funds. Approximately $6 million of total CCDF program expenditures were CCDF ARP Discretionary supplemental funds with a required obligation date of September 30, 2023. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures and increase supervisory oversight to ensure that obligations of grant funds are made within period of performance requirements established in the terms and conditions of Federal grant awards. Corrective Action Plan: See F-25 Management’s Response: The Department and the DHHS Financial Service Center agree with this finding. The DHHS Financial Service Center will enhance policies and procedures for the CCDF grant by modifying the FSR Reviewer Checklist by April 30, 2025. Contact: Sarah Gove, Director, DHHS Service Center, DAFS, 207-458-6626 (State Number: 24-1114-03)
(2024-063) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.658 $4,647 ALN 93.659 $9,367 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during the fiscal year and identified known questioned costs associated with seven clients based on various eligibility attributes. Since each exception is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21 and .40; 42 USC 671 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 42 USC 671 requires that prospective foster parents and any other adult living in the home who has resided in the provider home in the preceding five years satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check. The requirement applies to foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of the foster child. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. A financial resources specialist (FRS) determines program eligibility and initiates benefits through completion of a determination checklist. The FRS reviews program eligibility factors, gathers required supporting documentation, and documents the certification decision on the checklist. The FRS enters the information into the child welfare information system for processing. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a level of benefits is assigned. OCFS relies on this information and the related system coding to ensure that benefits are accurately provided to eligible clients. OSA tested 60 client eligibility determinations and found: • three determination checklists did not include a certification decision; • three determination checklists were signed by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination; and • one determination checklist did not initially include a certification decision. The determination checklist was signed subsequent to OSA’s request for review by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination. Additionally, one client’s prospective foster parent did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671. A second family was residing in the Resource Family Home (RFH), and child abuse and neglect registry checks were not completed or satisfactorily met for the additional adults. Additionally, the Home Study to evaluate the home and safety environment related to the RFH license for the family was completed without disclosing all individuals residing in the home. Upon further review, OSA determined two additional clients were in custody of the RFH and receiving Foster Care or Adoption Assistance benefits during fiscal year 2024. The RFH received $10,701 in benefits from both Federal programs on behalf of three clients, resulting in questioned costs of the entire amount. OSA tested 60 clients and 60 benefit payments and found: • one client received Foster Care childcare benefits after the date the client was adopted, resulting in questioned costs of $1,338. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments while in an unlicensed placement for one month, resulting in questioned costs of $783. • one client determined to be ineligible continued to receive Foster Care benefit payments during the fiscal year, resulting in questioned costs of $594. • one client changed placements during the fiscal year and two separate Foster Family Homes received benefit payments for the same time period on behalf of the client, resulting in questioned costs of $529. The Department recorded the overpayments in the child welfare information system but did not recoup the funds during the fiscal year. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments during the same time period that they received Adoption Assistance benefit payments, resulting in questioned costs of $69 to the RFH. • benefits for one client were paid with State funds and should have been paid with Federal funds for five months of the fiscal year. • one client’s eligibility record included an incorrect end date for benefits within the child welfare information system, resulting in the client being paid with State funds instead of claiming Federal funds for three months of the fiscal year. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of appropriate oversight over eligibility and benefit determinations • Lack of adequate policies and procedures and supervisory oversight of the child welfare information system. The system was implemented in fiscal year 2023 and policies and procedures were not designed to properly test system coding for all eligibility change circumstances that could occur. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits were provided to ineligible clients. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance policies and procedures to ensure that eligibility determination checklists include certification decisions by the FRS completing the determination; • implement additional procedures to ensure that payments made on behalf of clients are accurate and allowable in accordance with program regulations; • establish recoupments for the overpayments identified; and • strengthen licensing practices for background screening of potential and current RFHs. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees with the finding in that the checklist was not appropriately signed at the time of completion. OCFS would like to note that the checklist is not part of any state or federal policy or requirement. It is our own internal process and was only added to our FRS manual as a plan of correction (POC) because of last year’s finding re: some checklists not being signed. When an FRS worker completes an Initial determination in the system, the determination is printed out for our files and the document includes a timestamp when it was completed as well as the FRS assigned. Due to this POC just being added last year, this would be expected to be an ongoing finding for the foreseeable future since we cannot retroactively sign the completed checklists in the past. OCFS agrees there is a need to formalize the overpayment collection process. We believe that there are both programmatic and technical solutions to be explored. OCFS will develop a workgroup of subject matter experts to explore and understand the challenges of managing overpayments and develop a solution for implementation over the next year. OCFS disagrees with the finding that OCFS needs to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families. The finding is based on additional occupants in the home that were not subject to background checks and were not listed in the renewal home study completed in 2023. The home study referenced above described the home and all occupants as presented by the family. The Community Care Worker completed a safety inspection/walk through of the home and found no evidence of additional occupants. OCFS conducts background checks on the adults in the home in accordance with policy and rules, at initial licensure as well as renewal of licensure every two years. OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits and relies on resource families to report changes in family composition and occupancy. In the event there are not any children in the custody of the state in the home, OCFS would not have reason or cause to inspect who is residing in the home or conduct face-to-face visits with resource families. Because this specific finding does not describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, no correction action plan will be identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: For the exceptions identified over the eligibility determination checklists, the use of the checklist was identified to OSA by the Department as the established control to ensure compliance over determinations of Title IV-E eligibility for all clients entering Foster Care. While there is no Federal requirement for a checklist, the Department is required to establish and maintain internal controls over Federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303. OSA performed testing over the Department’s established internal control. Regarding the need to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families, the child welfare information system listed the additional occupants residing in the home as early as 2020, including within several family investigations and reports of alleged abuse occurring in the home. While OSA recognizes that OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits, the information surrounding resource families is obtainable through review of the child welfare information system. A cross-check of associated intakes, cases, family investigations, or reports of alleged abuse within the child welfare information system would have identified the second family residing in the home. The adults residing in the home did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671, and the RFH remained licensed and continued to inappropriately receive Title IV-E benefits. Therefore, this finding does describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, and a corrective action plan is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1109-01)
(2024-063) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.658 $4,647 ALN 93.659 $9,367 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during the fiscal year and identified known questioned costs associated with seven clients based on various eligibility attributes. Since each exception is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21 and .40; 42 USC 671 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 42 USC 671 requires that prospective foster parents and any other adult living in the home who has resided in the provider home in the preceding five years satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check. The requirement applies to foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of the foster child. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. A financial resources specialist (FRS) determines program eligibility and initiates benefits through completion of a determination checklist. The FRS reviews program eligibility factors, gathers required supporting documentation, and documents the certification decision on the checklist. The FRS enters the information into the child welfare information system for processing. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a level of benefits is assigned. OCFS relies on this information and the related system coding to ensure that benefits are accurately provided to eligible clients. OSA tested 60 client eligibility determinations and found: • three determination checklists did not include a certification decision; • three determination checklists were signed by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination; and • one determination checklist did not initially include a certification decision. The determination checklist was signed subsequent to OSA’s request for review by a FRS who did not perform the eligibility determination. Additionally, one client’s prospective foster parent did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671. A second family was residing in the Resource Family Home (RFH), and child abuse and neglect registry checks were not completed or satisfactorily met for the additional adults. Additionally, the Home Study to evaluate the home and safety environment related to the RFH license for the family was completed without disclosing all individuals residing in the home. Upon further review, OSA determined two additional clients were in custody of the RFH and receiving Foster Care or Adoption Assistance benefits during fiscal year 2024. The RFH received $10,701 in benefits from both Federal programs on behalf of three clients, resulting in questioned costs of the entire amount. OSA tested 60 clients and 60 benefit payments and found: • one client received Foster Care childcare benefits after the date the client was adopted, resulting in questioned costs of $1,338. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments while in an unlicensed placement for one month, resulting in questioned costs of $783. • one client determined to be ineligible continued to receive Foster Care benefit payments during the fiscal year, resulting in questioned costs of $594. • one client changed placements during the fiscal year and two separate Foster Family Homes received benefit payments for the same time period on behalf of the client, resulting in questioned costs of $529. The Department recorded the overpayments in the child welfare information system but did not recoup the funds during the fiscal year. • one client received Foster Care benefit payments during the same time period that they received Adoption Assistance benefit payments, resulting in questioned costs of $69 to the RFH. • benefits for one client were paid with State funds and should have been paid with Federal funds for five months of the fiscal year. • one client’s eligibility record included an incorrect end date for benefits within the child welfare information system, resulting in the client being paid with State funds instead of claiming Federal funds for three months of the fiscal year. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: • Lack of appropriate oversight over eligibility and benefit determinations • Lack of adequate policies and procedures and supervisory oversight of the child welfare information system. The system was implemented in fiscal year 2023 and policies and procedures were not designed to properly test system coding for all eligibility change circumstances that could occur. Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Benefits were provided to ineligible clients. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance policies and procedures to ensure that eligibility determination checklists include certification decisions by the FRS completing the determination; • implement additional procedures to ensure that payments made on behalf of clients are accurate and allowable in accordance with program regulations; • establish recoupments for the overpayments identified; and • strengthen licensing practices for background screening of potential and current RFHs. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees with the finding in that the checklist was not appropriately signed at the time of completion. OCFS would like to note that the checklist is not part of any state or federal policy or requirement. It is our own internal process and was only added to our FRS manual as a plan of correction (POC) because of last year’s finding re: some checklists not being signed. When an FRS worker completes an Initial determination in the system, the determination is printed out for our files and the document includes a timestamp when it was completed as well as the FRS assigned. Due to this POC just being added last year, this would be expected to be an ongoing finding for the foreseeable future since we cannot retroactively sign the completed checklists in the past. OCFS agrees there is a need to formalize the overpayment collection process. We believe that there are both programmatic and technical solutions to be explored. OCFS will develop a workgroup of subject matter experts to explore and understand the challenges of managing overpayments and develop a solution for implementation over the next year. OCFS disagrees with the finding that OCFS needs to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families. The finding is based on additional occupants in the home that were not subject to background checks and were not listed in the renewal home study completed in 2023. The home study referenced above described the home and all occupants as presented by the family. The Community Care Worker completed a safety inspection/walk through of the home and found no evidence of additional occupants. OCFS conducts background checks on the adults in the home in accordance with policy and rules, at initial licensure as well as renewal of licensure every two years. OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits and relies on resource families to report changes in family composition and occupancy. In the event there are not any children in the custody of the state in the home, OCFS would not have reason or cause to inspect who is residing in the home or conduct face-to-face visits with resource families. Because this specific finding does not describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, no correction action plan will be identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: For the exceptions identified over the eligibility determination checklists, the use of the checklist was identified to OSA by the Department as the established control to ensure compliance over determinations of Title IV-E eligibility for all clients entering Foster Care. While there is no Federal requirement for a checklist, the Department is required to establish and maintain internal controls over Federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR 200.303. OSA performed testing over the Department’s established internal control. Regarding the need to strengthen its licensing practices for background screening of Resource Families, the child welfare information system listed the additional occupants residing in the home as early as 2020, including within several family investigations and reports of alleged abuse occurring in the home. While OSA recognizes that OCFS does not conduct unannounced licensing visits, the information surrounding resource families is obtainable through review of the child welfare information system. A cross-check of associated intakes, cases, family investigations, or reports of alleged abuse within the child welfare information system would have identified the second family residing in the home. The adults residing in the home did not satisfactorily meet a child abuse and neglect registry check in accordance with 42 USC 671, and the RFH remained licensed and continued to inappropriately receive Title IV-E benefits. Therefore, this finding does describe a failure to adhere to policy and rules, and a corrective action plan is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1109-01)
(2024-064) Title: Internal control over the Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E eligibility and benefit determination process needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Eligibility Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned costs Known Questioned Costs: ALN 93.659 $10,860 Likely Questioned Costs: Undeterminable; the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) selected a sample of clients who received Title IV-E benefits during fiscal year 2024 and identified known questioned costs for three clients based on review of Adoption Agreements signed in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Since each Adoption Agreement is unique to the client, a projection of questioned costs cannot be reasonably estimated. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.40 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for Title IV-E eligible clients. Condition: The Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Adoption Assistance program for the State. OCFS financial resource specialists (FRS) are responsible for determining program eligibility and initiating benefits. The FRS uses the Adoption Assistance Checklist to ensure that program eligibility factors, required supporting information, and final determination for Federal Adoption Assistance benefits are obtained and documented. Once the client is determined eligible in the child welfare information system, a daily rate is negotiated by OCFS and the adoptive parents at a rate that does not exceed what the client would qualify for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. OSA tested 60 client benefit payments and identified that: • one client received Social Security Administration benefits, and therefore, was not eligible for Adoption Assistance benefits. The client received a daily Adoption Assistance rate of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $6,023 during fiscal year 2024. • one client received a higher daily Adoption Assistance rate than what they qualified for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. The client received a $26.25 daily rate instead of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $3,559 during fiscal year 2024. • one client received a higher daily Adoption Assistance rate than what they qualified for under the Foster Care – Title IV-E program. The client received a $20 daily rate instead of $16.50, resulting in questioned costs of $1,278 during fiscal year 2024. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of adequate policies and procedures over verification and accuracy of benefit determinations and associated Adoption Assistance payments Effect: • Known questioned costs • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Individuals not eligible for services could receive benefits. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of eligibility and benefit determinations, and verify that benefit payments are made in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-26 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Completion of the Adoption Assistance Checklist has not been universally understood to be used as the internal control for documentation of certification decisions, but as a guide for staff to use in preparing and organizing the Application for Adoption Assistance Packets. We agree that this is an effective tool to ensure certification decisions regarding IVE and consistent documentation in case files. Contact: Karen Benson, Adoption Program Manager, OCFS, DHHS, 207-561-4208 (State Number: 24-1110-01)
(2024-065) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E programs FMAP rates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21, .40, and .60; Public Law No. 117-328, Section 5131 of Division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligible criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 45 CFR 1356.60 outlines the matching percentage of Title IV-E funding in Adoption Assistance subsidy payments and is based on the Federal Medical Assistance Program (FMAP) percentage. As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted a temporary increase to the FMAP rate that is used in determining the Federal share of expenditures for assistance payments under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs. This was permitted for each calendar quarter occurring during the period beginning on January 1, 2020. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted on December 29, 2022, the enhanced FMAP rate was required to be phased out and end completely on December 31, 2023. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for eligible clients. The FMAP rate is programmed into the child welfare information system by OCFS to apply the correct allocation between Federal and State funds to each transaction for eligible Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligible clients. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) submits quarterly financial reports that detail the allocation between Federal and State funds, based on the FMAP programmed into the report template obtained from the Federal agency. When discrepancies are identified, DHHS SC will correct the fund allocation in the State’s accounting system and report the benefit amounts using the correct FMAP rates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 Foster Care benefit payments and 60 Adoption Assistance benefit payments and found that OCFS program personnel did not reduce the FMAP rate from January 1, 2024, through May 3, 2024. For 17 Foster Care and 29 Adoption Assistance benefit payments, OCFS continued to claim the enhanced rate of 64.15 percent for both programs, instead of the required 62.65 percent rate. While the incorrect rate was applied to individual client benefit payments, DHHS SC reported the correct FMAP rate and Federal participation amounts in the quarterly financial reports and drew Federal funds based on the correct FMAP rate for that period. DHHS SC and OCFS did not confirm that the correct rates were applied within the child welfare information system. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of central oversight over communication of FMAP rate changes between DHHS SC and OCFS personnel Effect: • Inaccurate Federal and State allocation for client benefit payments within the child welfare information system, resulting in discrepancies between the State’s accounting system and the child welfare information system. • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures to ensure the appropriate FMAP rates are communicated and entered into the child welfare information system accurately and timely. This will ensure that client benefit information is accurately reflected in the child welfare information system and agrees to the client benefit amounts in the State’s accounting system. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees there was a failure in the timely communication process of the step down FMAP rate to OCFS. OCFS has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 (State Number: 24-1110-02)
(2024-065) Title: Internal control over the Foster Care – Title IV-E and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E programs FMAP rates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Office of Child and Family Services Health and Human Services Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Foster Care – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.658; 93.659 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Matching, level of effort, earmarking Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 45 CFR 1356.21, .40, and .60; Public Law No. 117-328, Section 5131 of Division FF of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. 45 CFR 1356.21 outlines eligible criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay foster care maintenance payments on behalf of eligible children, in accordance with the Title IV-E agency’s foster care maintenance payment rate schedule, to individuals serving as foster family homes, to childcare institutions, or to public or private child-placement or childcare agencies. 45 CFR 1356.40 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for the payment. 45 CFR 1356.60 outlines the matching percentage of Title IV-E funding in Adoption Assistance subsidy payments and is based on the Federal Medical Assistance Program (FMAP) percentage. As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services granted a temporary increase to the FMAP rate that is used in determining the Federal share of expenditures for assistance payments under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs. This was permitted for each calendar quarter occurring during the period beginning on January 1, 2020. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted on December 29, 2022, the enhanced FMAP rate was required to be phased out and end completely on December 31, 2023. Condition: The Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) administers the Foster Care – Title IV-E (Foster Care) and Adoption Assistance – Title IV-E (Adoption Assistance) programs for the State, outlined below: • The Foster Care program is designed to help states provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children under its jurisdiction until the children are returned home safely, placed with adoptive families, or placed in other planned arrangements for permanency. • The Adoption Assistance program provides Federal funds to states to facilitate the timely placement of children, whose special needs or circumstances would otherwise make them difficult to place, with adoptive families. Funds are available for a one-time payment to assist with the costs of adopting a child as well as for subsidies to adoptive families to assist with the care of the eligible child on an ongoing basis. The State is allowed to pay a portion of the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance maintenance payments and claim Federal financial participation for eligible clients. The FMAP rate is programmed into the child welfare information system by OCFS to apply the correct allocation between Federal and State funds to each transaction for eligible Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligible clients. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Service Center (DHHS SC) submits quarterly financial reports that detail the allocation between Federal and State funds, based on the FMAP programmed into the report template obtained from the Federal agency. When discrepancies are identified, DHHS SC will correct the fund allocation in the State’s accounting system and report the benefit amounts using the correct FMAP rates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 Foster Care benefit payments and 60 Adoption Assistance benefit payments and found that OCFS program personnel did not reduce the FMAP rate from January 1, 2024, through May 3, 2024. For 17 Foster Care and 29 Adoption Assistance benefit payments, OCFS continued to claim the enhanced rate of 64.15 percent for both programs, instead of the required 62.65 percent rate. While the incorrect rate was applied to individual client benefit payments, DHHS SC reported the correct FMAP rate and Federal participation amounts in the quarterly financial reports and drew Federal funds based on the correct FMAP rate for that period. DHHS SC and OCFS did not confirm that the correct rates were applied within the child welfare information system. OSA selected non-statistical random samples. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State provided approximately: • 900 Foster Care clients with $5.4 million in Federal benefits; and • 4,200 Adoption Assistance clients with $24.7 million in Federal benefits. Cause: Lack of central oversight over communication of FMAP rate changes between DHHS SC and OCFS personnel Effect: • Inaccurate Federal and State allocation for client benefit payments within the child welfare information system, resulting in discrepancies between the State’s accounting system and the child welfare information system. • Potential future questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Departments enhance policies and procedures to ensure the appropriate FMAP rates are communicated and entered into the child welfare information system accurately and timely. This will ensure that client benefit information is accurately reflected in the child welfare information system and agrees to the client benefit amounts in the State’s accounting system. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OCFS agrees there was a failure in the timely communication process of the step down FMAP rate to OCFS. OCFS has developed and will implement a corrective action plan to address the issue identified. Contact: Robert Blanchard, Associate Director, OCFS, DHHS, 207-624-7955 (State Number: 24-1110-02)
(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)
(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)
(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)
(2024-067) Title: Internal control over Medicaid Nursing Facility audits needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Division of Audit Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Special tests and provisions Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 447.253(g); MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter III, Section 67 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department is required to provide for the periodic audits of the financial and statistical records of participating providers. The MaineCare Benefits Manual (MCBM) Chapter III, Section 67 outlines the documentation and support required to be included in a provider’s annual cost report filing submission to the Division of Audit. The Division of Audit’s requirements for reviewing the cost reports and performing uniform desk reviews is also outlined. Section 67 states that the Division of Audit must perform a uniform desk review on each Nursing Facility (NF) cost report submission within 365 days of receipt of an acceptable cost report filing. Condition: For each participating Long Term Care Facility, the Department must provide for the filing of uniform cost reports in order to establish payment rates and must provide for the periodic audits of financial and statistical records. The specific audit requirements will be established by the State plan. The MCBM states uniform desk reviews shall be completed within 365 days after receipt of an acceptable cost report filing, including financial statements and other information requested from the provider except in unusual situations including, but not limited to, delays in obtaining necessary information from a provider. Unless the Division of Audit intends to schedule an on-site audit or an unusual situation referenced above exists, a written summary report of findings and adjustments shall be issued upon completion of the uniform desk review. The Division of Audit did not complete NF audits in accordance with Federal regulations. The population of NF uniform desk reviews due for completion in fiscal year 2024 was 89. Of those 89 uniform desk reviews, none were completed at the time of audit testing in September 2024. Context: The Department: • provided $262.6 million in Federal Medicaid funding and $107.6 million in State Medicaid funding to NFs during fiscal year 2024. • completed 69 NF uniform desk reviews related to prior fiscal years in fiscal year 2024. Cause: Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal and State regulations • The determination of amounts owed to or from NFs is delayed. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department reallocate resources to address the backlog of NF uniform desk reviews. Timely audit issuance will minimize the impact on providers of potential payables and receivables. Corrective Action Plan: See F-27 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding and cause. The lack of resources is the result of high vacancy rates (30%) for the Division of Audit and staff working on reviews of COVID funding. The Division of Audit has completed the reviews required for COVID funding and will be redirecting staff to work on the Medicaid audits. The Division of Audit is working to fill all vacant positions, so resources are available for these audits. Lastly, the Department has implemented a new reimbursement methodology for Nursing Facilities which will reduce the amount of audit testing required. Contact: Herb Downs, Director, Division of Audit, DHHS, 207-287-2778 (State Number: 24-1106-01)
(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)
(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)
(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)
(2024-068) Title: Internal control over Medicare Part B premium payments needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 42 CFR 431.625 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. 42 CFR 431.625 outlines eligibility criteria which, if met, allows the State to pay a portion of the Federal Medicare Part B premium on behalf of the client and claim Federal financial participation in the payment. Clients may be deemed eligible by the Federal government as indicated by a Federal Buy-In code, or by the State as indicated by eligibility status in the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES). Condition: The Department receives monthly invoices from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare Part B premiums. CMS provides a separate detailed listing of transactions relating to the status of Medicaid clients’ Medicare Part B (Buy-In) eligibility that the Office for Family Independence (OFI) Data Team utilizes to produce the Monthly Buy-In Report. OFI eligibility personnel use the Monthly Buy-In Report to reconcile Buy-In actions taken by and between CMS and ACES to ensure Medicare Part B payments are made only to those deemed eligible. The OFI Data Team produced 12 Monthly Buy-In Reports throughout fiscal year 2024. The Department could not provide documentation that reports were reviewed or corrective action was taken for seven months of potential discrepancies. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately $123 million in Federal funds and $70 million in State funds were paid to CMS for Medicare Part B premiums. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Potential Medicare Part B premiums paid by the State for ineligible clients • Potential questioned costs and disallowances • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement oversight procedures to ensure that Monthly Buy-In Reports are reviewed, corrective action is implemented if required, and documentation is retained. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. There has been marked improvement in our results reviewing and acting on these reports since our MaineCare Program Integrity team became fully staffed in March 2024. We intend to review our processes further and regularly to ensure satisfaction of the requirement. The Department provided documentation to support that review and corrective actions were completed for five of the twelve months. Documentation could not be provided to support full review for seven months. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 (State Number: 24-1106-03)
(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected. A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)
(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected. A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)
(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected. A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)
(2024-069) Title: Internal control over Medicaid cost of care assessments and deductions needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See scheduleof Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office for Family Independence Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; 42 CFR 435.725; MaineCare Eligibility Manual, Part 14, Section 6 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The Department must reduce its payment to an institution for services provided to an individual by the amount that remains after deducting certain amounts from the member’s total income. This remaining amount is the member’s maximum share of the cost, known as cost of care (COC). Condition: A COC assessment represents the required contribution that a MaineCare recipient must pay toward care in a Long Term Care Facility (LTCF). The Office for Family Independence (OFI) is responsible for COC assessments for all Medicaid members in the State. COC assessments are either calculated by the Automated Client Eligibility System or calculated manually by eligibility specialists. System-generated COC assessments are not subject to secondary review. A COC deduction represents the amount of assessment that was deducted from a paid claim. Members may have an assessment calculated but may never have a claim with a deduction utilizing that assessment. The Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is responsible for applying assessments to submitted claims prior to payment. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 COC assessments and related deductions from paid claims. OSA identified: • one COC assessment was not calculated correctly or retroactively adjusted. The COC was higher than it should have been by $10. The assessment was $1,099 and should have been $1,089 for six months during the fiscal year. This member had six claims where the incorrect COC was applied. • one COC deduction was not deducted correctly from the paid claim. The COC deducted was lower than it should have been by $22. The assessment was $1,713 for two months during the fiscal year and the amount that was deducted was $1,691. This member had two claims where the incorrect COC deduction was applied. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, approximately: • 18,000 COC assessments were calculated by OFI; • 8,500 members had COC assessments; and • $627 million was paid to LTCFs. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure COC assessments are calculated correctly • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure system exception reports are complete and accurate Effect: • Inaccurate COC assessments, deductions, and retroactive changes may result in overpayments or underpayments for members or the State. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that: • OFI enhance oversight procedures to ensure that COC assessments are calculated and deducted correctly. • OMS collaborate with OFI to ensure that system exception reports capture all COC-related claims which require adjustments. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department partially agrees with this finding. The Department agrees with the two exceptions found by the Office of the State Auditor. However, we believe that the Department has reasonable assurance with the controls in place that results in a 97% compliance with the COC calculations, which has not decreased from previous findings. No corrective action is necessary as a result of an error rate of only 3%. The Department will continue to actively manage and monitor the Cost of Care system in compliance with federal regulations. In response to the first of two errors identified by OSA, OMS will request an update to an existing Cost of Care report supplied by a third-party vendor. Changes to cost of care are contained in the Retroactive Cost of Care Report, however if there is a second determination of cost of care in a month and the result is identical to the first change in the month, neither is included in the report. This is an error in the report logic that must be corrected. A Change Request will be created to modify and correct the report so that the latest change in the month will be reported to be acted on by OMS. Contact: Ian Yaffe, Director, Office for Family Independence, DHHS, 207-592-1481 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: The Department agrees with the exceptions identified in the Condition. The Department’s disagreement is derived from the three percent sample payment error rate. The Department asserts that the error rate is acceptable and thus, no corrective action is necessary; however, for the two exceptions OSA identified, existing control procedures resulted in inaccurate claim payments. While OSA recognizes that achieving 100 percent accuracy in calculating COC assessments and applying COC deductions would likely not be feasible, the identified control deficiencies indicate that a review of operating procedures and implementation of improvements is necessary. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-05)
(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)
(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)
(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)
(2024-070) Title: Internal control over Medicaid drug rebates needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; Section 1927 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 1396r-8) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires manufacturers that wish to have their outpatient drugs covered by Medicaid to enter into an agreement with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under which the manufacturers agree to pay rebates for drugs dispensed and paid for by the State Medicaid agencies under the State plan. Drug rebates are shared between the State and Federal government. Condition: Drug manufacturers are required to submit a list of all covered outpatient drugs, along with each drug’s average manufacturer price and “best price” to CMS. Utilizing this information, CMS calculates a unit rebate amount (URA) for each covered outpatient drug and provides the amounts to the State on a quarterly basis. The Department is required to maintain drug utilization data that identifies, by National Drug Code (NDC), the number of units of each covered outpatient drug for which the Department has paid pharmacy providers. The utilization data is provided to CMS and the manufacturers. The number of dispensed units is applied to the URA to determine the rebate amount due from each manufacturer. The State contracts with a vendor to calculate the drug rebate amounts and invoice manufacturers for drug rebates. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) identified that the Department does not have procedures in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the drug rebate amounts invoiced by the vendor. Though the Department validates that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing, this review is performed after the invoicing cycle. In addition, the Department does not compare drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced, or corroborate that the correct URA is applied to each NDC to ensure that the vendor has calculated the rebate correctly. Context: In fiscal year 2024, the State invoiced approximately $300 million for rebatable drugs and received approximately $216 million in rebates. Of the $216 million in rebates, approximately $144 million was returned to the Federal government. Due to the amount of time rebate negotiations may take, discrepancies will exist between the invoiced total and the total amount of rebates received. Cause: • Lack of adequate procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Inaccurate or incomplete invoicing of drug rebates would result in overpayments or underpayments to the State and Federal government. • Noncompliance with Federal regulations Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement procedures to confirm the drug rebate amounts calculated and invoiced by the vendor are accurate and complete, including: • validating that only rebatable drugs are invoiced and all rebatable drugs are included for invoicing; • comparing drug utilization data to the number of dispensed units invoiced; and • corroborating the correct URA is applied to each NDC. This will ensure that correct drug rebate amounts are returned to the State and Federal government. Corrective Action Plan: See F-28 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. PRIMS (Pharmacy Rebate Information Management System), provided to the State of Maine by a third-party vendor, is a proven system in production in many locations and PRIMS has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits. The drug rebate program is complex and there are numerous steps in the process which have already been demonstrated and/or provided to the Office of State Auditor. The controls described to the State Auditor previously (Pre-invoicing controls, pharmacy claims controls and medical claims controls) address all three of the Auditors’ Recommendations. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: 2 CFR 200.303 requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls. The Department’s Management Response stating that the vendor’s drug rebate information system “is a proven system in production in many locations” that “has passed a wide variety of Federal and State audits” only further validates that the Department is fully relying on the vendor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of drug rebate invoices. As stated in Management’s Response “the drug rebate program is complex” which further emphasizes the need for proper oversight. Existing reliance on the vendor demonstrates that the Department does not have adequate oversight procedures in place. In addition, the Department asserts controls are in place to address OSA’s Recommendation; however, the controls referenced in Management’s Response do not adequately address the risk associated with the issues noted in the Condition. The pre-invoicing controls referenced by the Department are performed at a summary level and the pharmacy and medical claims controls are not directly tied to the drug rebate invoicing process. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-1106-07)
(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)
(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)
(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)
(2024-071) Title: Internal control over Medicaid paid medical claims needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Health and Human Services State Bureau: Office of MaineCare Services Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Medicaid Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 93.775, 93.777, 93.778 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.403; MaineCare Benefits Manual, Chapter 101, Section 90 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. To be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be adequately documented. The MaineCare Benefits Manual states that the Medicaid program will reimburse at the lowest applicable rate for covered physician services. Condition: The Department’s Office of MaineCare Services (OMS) is billed by medical providers for services provided to Medicaid members. Provider reimbursement rates for certain medical services increased January 1, 2024; however, providers continued to bill OMS utilizing outdated rates until a retroactive adjustment was processed by OMS in March 2024 for certain medical services reimbursed in January and February. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 60 paid medical claims and identified one claim that was reimbursed at a higher than authorized rate. As a result, OMS overpaid the provider by $5. To determine the pervasiveness of the error, OSA reviewed all claims for the same medical service paid between January 1 and the March 2024 retroactive adjustment and found 510 claims that were never retroactively adjusted. A total of $3,300 was identified as overpaid to providers. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, $2.2 billion was paid to providers for medical claims. Cause: • Lack of supervisory oversight • Lack of adequate procedures to ensure all medical claims are paid correctly Effect: • Inaccurate paid claims resulted in overpayments and may also result in underpayments to providers. • Potential questioned costs and disallowances Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance oversight procedures to ensure that authorized provider reimbursement rates are utilized, and any retroactive adjustments are applied to all affected paid claims accurately and completely. This will ensure that Medicaid claims are not overpaid or underpaid to providers. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. OMS has determined that there is an issue with the manual intervention taken by the third-party vendor to prepare this report. This caused some claims that required adjustment to be excluded from the report. Through discussion with the vendor, OMS has determined that the vendor does not have a standardized procedure to prepare this report for OMS. Maine will require the vendor to prepare a Desk Level Procedure (DLP) for the preparation of this report. This DLP will be reviewed by the State and the report will go through testing and validation, as necessary, before the report is used again. Contact: Michelle Probert, Director, Office of MaineCare Services, DHHS, 207-287-2093 (State Number: 24-1106-06)
(2024-073) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subawards Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient of the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program, Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 33 DG – PA subawards totaling $8,864,828 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • two subawards totaling $364,133 were not reported; • 27 subawards totaling $8,246,776 were not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • 21 subawards reported incorrect key data elements. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, MEMA was required to report 280 first-tier subawards totaling approximately $57 million under the DG – PA program. First-tier subawards account for 83 percent of the program’s fiscal year 2024 expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the DG – PA program was not reported to the Federal government timely and included inaccurate or incomplete information. This information may be used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA’s procedure for Federal Financial Reporting already includes a standardized workbook template to compile Federal and State financial data for each grant award and facilitate accurate completion of the SF-425 form. The workbook is prepared by one MEMA staff member, and the resulting draft SF-425 form is reviewed by another MEMA staff member prior to finalization and signature by MEMA’s Authorized Representative. MEMA engaged with Federal funding partners in FY2024 to understand the appropriate data validation processes for financial reporting within the Public Assistance Grants Portal and Payment Management System (PMS), including participation in a training workshop and receiving data validation feedback from reviewers at the Federal level. These reporting process refinements will be reflected in updates to the existing SOP, and an additional review tab will be incorporated into the existing SF-425 preparatory workbooks to document review and data validation steps in detail. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-03)
(2024-073) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program special reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Material weakness Material noncompliance Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 170 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Agencies must report each subaward that equals or exceeds the first-tier subaward threshold of $30,000 in Federal funds in the public-facing Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subawards Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: When an amount exceeding the first-tier subaward threshold is awarded to a subrecipient of the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program, Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must collect and enter data into FSRS. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 33 DG – PA subawards totaling $8,864,828 that exceeded the first-tier subaward threshold. Federal regulations require the following information for identified noncompliance to be included in FFATA findings: • two subawards totaling $364,133 were not reported; • 27 subawards totaling $8,246,776 were not reported timely; • no subaward amounts were reported incorrectly; and • 21 subawards reported incorrect key data elements. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: In fiscal year 2024, MEMA was required to report 280 first-tier subawards totaling approximately $57 million under the DG – PA program. First-tier subawards account for 83 percent of the program’s fiscal year 2024 expenditures. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of resources Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • Accurate first-tier subaward information for the DG – PA program was not reported to the Federal government timely and included inaccurate or incomplete information. This information may be used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department enhance policies and procedures to ensure that first-tier subawards are reported accurately, timely, and in accordance with Federal regulations. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA’s procedure for Federal Financial Reporting already includes a standardized workbook template to compile Federal and State financial data for each grant award and facilitate accurate completion of the SF-425 form. The workbook is prepared by one MEMA staff member, and the resulting draft SF-425 form is reviewed by another MEMA staff member prior to finalization and signature by MEMA’s Authorized Representative. MEMA engaged with Federal funding partners in FY2024 to understand the appropriate data validation processes for financial reporting within the Public Assistance Grants Portal and Payment Management System (PMS), including participation in a training workshop and receiving data validation feedback from reviewers at the Federal level. These reporting process refinements will be reflected in updates to the existing SOP, and an additional review tab will be incorporated into the existing SF-425 preparatory workbooks to document review and data validation steps in detail. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-03)
(2024-074) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205(A); 2024 Treasury-State Agreement (Maine) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) documents the accepted funding techniques and methods for calculating interest agreed upon by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the State. The funding technique agreed upon in the State’s TSA for the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program is the “actual drawdown – weekly” method. This method specifies that the State shall make weekly drawdowns based on actual expenditures which occurred in the past weekly period. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the DG – PA program for the State. The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for requesting drawdowns of Federal funds in order to pay DG – PA program expenditures on behalf of MEMA. MEMA reviews, authorizes, and submits approved invoices to SESC for payment. SESC then requests Federal funds based on the approved invoices and processes the authorized payment once Federal funds are received. SESC completed 69 Federal grant drawdowns for the DG – PA program in fiscal year 2024, which is not consistent with the TSA requirements that only allow for weekly drawdowns. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures and identified a drawdown that was drawn in advance of actual disbursement. OSA reviewed additional drawdowns and identified other drawdowns during fiscal year 2024 that were also drawn in advance of actual disbursement. This process is not consistent with TSA requirements. As a result, MEMA had excess cash on hand during fiscal year 2024 and is not in compliance with cash management requirements. Context: In fiscal year 2024, there were 69 Federal grant drawdowns totaling approximately $69 million for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • The Federal government may improve more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the funding techniques specified in the TSA when requesting Federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was already implemented mid-way through State Fiscal Year 2024 as polices and procedures were updated, and a weekly draw process has been since been used. The Security and Employment Service Center began reconciling draw requests as part of these updated procedures. A majority of the cash on hand was due to contract modifications as the cash was drawn but the payments could not be made until the contract modifications were completed in the accounting system. MEMA made subsequent updates to the cash management process to avoid drawing for payments that might be impacted by unanticipated delays in the final two weeks of each quarter. In addition, the department discussed modifying the Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) with the Office of the State Treasurer. The 2025 TSA lists a Weekly Drawdown - Actual & Estimate funding technique for this major program as some of these payments are too substantial for the State to process and have to wait for reimbursement. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-04)
(2024-074) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program cash management needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Security and Employment Service Center Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Cash management Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 31 CFR 205(A); 2024 Treasury-State Agreement (Maine) The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. A Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) documents the accepted funding techniques and methods for calculating interest agreed upon by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the State. The funding technique agreed upon in the State’s TSA for the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program is the “actual drawdown – weekly” method. This method specifies that the State shall make weekly drawdowns based on actual expenditures which occurred in the past weekly period. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the DG – PA program for the State. The Department of Administrative and Financial Services’ Security and Employment Service Center (SESC) is responsible for requesting drawdowns of Federal funds in order to pay DG – PA program expenditures on behalf of MEMA. MEMA reviews, authorizes, and submits approved invoices to SESC for payment. SESC then requests Federal funds based on the approved invoices and processes the authorized payment once Federal funds are received. SESC completed 69 Federal grant drawdowns for the DG – PA program in fiscal year 2024, which is not consistent with the TSA requirements that only allow for weekly drawdowns. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) performed analytical procedures and identified a drawdown that was drawn in advance of actual disbursement. OSA reviewed additional drawdowns and identified other drawdowns during fiscal year 2024 that were also drawn in advance of actual disbursement. This process is not consistent with TSA requirements. As a result, MEMA had excess cash on hand during fiscal year 2024 and is not in compliance with cash management requirements. Context: In fiscal year 2024, there were 69 Federal grant drawdowns totaling approximately $69 million for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal regulations • The Federal government may improve more stringent program-specific cash management requirements based on noncompliance. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the funding techniques specified in the TSA when requesting Federal funds. Corrective Action Plan: See F-29 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was already implemented mid-way through State Fiscal Year 2024 as polices and procedures were updated, and a weekly draw process has been since been used. The Security and Employment Service Center began reconciling draw requests as part of these updated procedures. A majority of the cash on hand was due to contract modifications as the cash was drawn but the payments could not be made until the contract modifications were completed in the accounting system. MEMA made subsequent updates to the cash management process to avoid drawing for payments that might be impacted by unanticipated delays in the final two weeks of each quarter. In addition, the department discussed modifying the Treasury-State Agreement (TSA) with the Office of the State Treasurer. The 2025 TSA lists a Weekly Drawdown - Actual & Estimate funding technique for this major program as some of these payments are too substantial for the State to process and have to wait for reimbursement. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-04)
(2024-075) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program for the State. MEMA is required to submit quarterly DG – PA Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office. FFRs provide FEMA with the status of funds for the award, Federal expenditures, and cost-sharing requirements. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested four FFRs due in fiscal year 2024 and found: • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $889,510 when the correct total was $617,318; • one FFR inaccurately reported the recipient share of expenditures as $712,412 when the correct share was $159,382; and • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $640,654 when the correct total was $1,469,390, and the recipient share of expenditures as $842,604 when the correct share was $434,484. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, 33 FFRs were required to be filed by MEMA for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures to ensure data used for financial reporting is complete and accurate • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements • Inaccurate tracking of subawards may result in noncompliance with Federal matching requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA enhance policies and procedures to ensure that FFRs are accurate and include all required information for compliance with Federal reporting requirements. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was implemented at the end of State Fiscal Year 2024. Untimely reports were primarily due to a backlog of required reporting that was brought up to date over the fiscal year as a corrective action to the prior year finding. In the current monthly reporting process, award data is provided by grant program experts to avoid incorrect data elements, and reporting is reviewed for completeness by a staff member not involved in report submission. In the third quarter of FY2025, the FFATA reporting system was retired from FSRS.gov and transferred to SAM.gov, further minimizing the possibility of incorrect data elements being reported. MEMA will update the existing SOP for FFATA reporting to address specifics related to the new reporting process within SAM.gov Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-02)
(2024-075) Title: Internal control over DG – PA program financial reporting needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.302 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must maintain accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with reporting requirements. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) administers the Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) program for the State. MEMA is required to submit quarterly DG – PA Federal Financial Reports (FFRs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regional Office. FFRs provide FEMA with the status of funds for the award, Federal expenditures, and cost-sharing requirements. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested four FFRs due in fiscal year 2024 and found: • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $889,510 when the correct total was $617,318; • one FFR inaccurately reported the recipient share of expenditures as $712,412 when the correct share was $159,382; and • one FFR inaccurately reported total Federal funds authorized as $640,654 when the correct total was $1,469,390, and the recipient share of expenditures as $842,604 when the correct share was $434,484. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: During fiscal year 2024, 33 FFRs were required to be filed by MEMA for the DG – PA program. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures to ensure data used for financial reporting is complete and accurate • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: • Noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements • Inaccurate tracking of subawards may result in noncompliance with Federal matching requirements. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA enhance policies and procedures to ensure that FFRs are accurate and include all required information for compliance with Federal reporting requirements. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. Corrective action was implemented at the end of State Fiscal Year 2024. Untimely reports were primarily due to a backlog of required reporting that was brought up to date over the fiscal year as a corrective action to the prior year finding. In the current monthly reporting process, award data is provided by grant program experts to avoid incorrect data elements, and reporting is reviewed for completeness by a staff member not involved in report submission. In the third quarter of FY2025, the FFATA reporting system was retired from FSRS.gov and transferred to SAM.gov, further minimizing the possibility of incorrect data elements being reported. MEMA will update the existing SOP for FFATA reporting to address specifics related to the new reporting process within SAM.gov Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-02)
(2024-076) Title: Internal control over the submission of DG – PA program Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. MEMA submitted schedules to OSC that incorrectly reported $91,471 of expenditures under ALN 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs that should have been reported under ALN 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) (Presidentially Declared Disasters). MEMA procedures do not require review of schedules prior to submission to OSC. Context: In fiscal year 2024, DG – PA expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA will work with Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management staff to develop an agency-specific procedure for comprehensive review of the agency’s Federal expenditures at an appropriate point in the department’s annual SEFA reporting process. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-01)
(2024-076) Title: Internal control over the submission of DG – PA program Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards information needs improvement Prior Year Findings: None State Department: Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management State Bureau: Maine Emergency Management Agency Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistance Listing Title: Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Reporting Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.510 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. The Department must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the State’s financial statements which must include the total Federal awards expended. At a minimum, the SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program. Condition: The Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) must complete and submit exhibits and related schedules to the Office of the State Controller (OSC) at the close of each fiscal year to report Federal award information for inclusion on the State’s SEFA. OSC is responsible for compiling this information on behalf of the State. MEMA submitted schedules to OSC that incorrectly reported $91,471 of expenditures under ALN 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households – Other Needs that should have been reported under ALN 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (DG – PA) (Presidentially Declared Disasters). MEMA procedures do not require review of schedules prior to submission to OSC. Context: In fiscal year 2024, DG – PA expenditures totaled approximately $68 million. Cause: • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: Inaccurate reporting of expenditure amounts on the SEFA, which is submitted to the Federal government, may result in incorrect information used for programmatic, policy, or statistical purposes. Recommendation: We recommend that MEMA implement policies and procedures that require a comprehensive review of SEFA schedules prior to submission to OSC. Corrective Action Plan: See F-30 Management’s Response: The Department agrees with this finding. MEMA will work with Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management staff to develop an agency-specific procedure for comprehensive review of the agency’s Federal expenditures at an appropriate point in the department’s annual SEFA reporting process. Contact: Sunny Cyr, Business Office Director, MEMA, DVEM, 207-707-2507 (State Number: 24-1502-01)
Finding 2024-004, Documentation of Case Note Review (Assistance Listing 16.575) Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.303(a) (Internal Controls). All recipient and subrecipient must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition and Context: The Agency’s maintains client case notes to track the services provided to program participants. These case notes are subject to periodic reviews by a Supervisor. We reviewed 25 samples and noted no documentation the review for any of the samples. Cause: The Agency’s policies for maintaining case notes do not require a sign-off by the Supervisor. Effect: The lack of documented supervisory review weakens internal controls over case note management, increasing the risk of errors, incomplete records, or noncompliance with program requirements. Identification as a Repeat Finding: No. Questioned Costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency enhance its policies and procedures for case note management by implementing a formal supervisory review process. This should include a documented sign-off by the supervisor to confirm the review has been completed, ensuring compliance with internal control requirements.
FINDING 2024-001 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Eligibility Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014, S010A230014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility Audit Finding: Significant Deficiency Condition and Context Eligibility for Title I is determined on the Eligible School Summary of the Title I application. Enrollment and poverty numbers are automatically pulled from the Indiana Department of Education's (IDOE) Official Pupil Enrollment (PE) count for each school into the Eligible School Summary page of the Title I application. The counts that are prepopulated should be based on the School Corporation's records as of October of the prior fiscal year. During the audit period, the School Corporation submitted two Title I applications. The School Corporation was required to use the October 2021 PE report data for the 2022-2023 Title I application and the October 2022 PE report data for the 2023-2024 Title I application submitted to the IDOE. Data to be submitted included student socioeconomic status information. Additionally, the School Corporation receives enrollment and poverty data from nonpublic schools that receive Title I funding. The School Corporation must manually enter that information into the Title I application. During the review, we noted that both the PE report and the enrollment and poverty data was prepared and reviewed by the Title I Director. No other reviews were performed. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Title I Director reviews all the information that is prepopulated by the IDOE in the Title I application and confirms all nonpublic schools information reported in the application. However, officials were not aware that a second review should take place prior to submission with procedures performed by the second reviewer properly documented. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, proper documentation of a review of the Title I application was not maintained. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place and the review is documented. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of the report.
FINDING 2024-001 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Eligibility Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014, S010A230014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility Audit Finding: Significant Deficiency Condition and Context Eligibility for Title I is determined on the Eligible School Summary of the Title I application. Enrollment and poverty numbers are automatically pulled from the Indiana Department of Education's (IDOE) Official Pupil Enrollment (PE) count for each school into the Eligible School Summary page of the Title I application. The counts that are prepopulated should be based on the School Corporation's records as of October of the prior fiscal year. During the audit period, the School Corporation submitted two Title I applications. The School Corporation was required to use the October 2021 PE report data for the 2022-2023 Title I application and the October 2022 PE report data for the 2023-2024 Title I application submitted to the IDOE. Data to be submitted included student socioeconomic status information. Additionally, the School Corporation receives enrollment and poverty data from nonpublic schools that receive Title I funding. The School Corporation must manually enter that information into the Title I application. During the review, we noted that both the PE report and the enrollment and poverty data was prepared and reviewed by the Title I Director. No other reviews were performed. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Title I Director reviews all the information that is prepopulated by the IDOE in the Title I application and confirms all nonpublic schools information reported in the application. However, officials were not aware that a second review should take place prior to submission with procedures performed by the second reviewer properly documented. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, proper documentation of a review of the Title I application was not maintained. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would provide segregation of duties to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place and the review is documented. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of the report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 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, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the earmarking requirements. The School Corporation did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met and to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Special Education Director allocated a portion of the salaries of the teachers that provided services to nonpublic schools and requested reimbursement based on this calculation. There was no documentation of how the calculation was performed or that a review of that calculation by another individual occurred. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause The Special Education Director is responsible for reporting and tracking funds spent related to the required proportionate share amounts for each grant. The Special Education Director had a procedure in place to request nonpublic school expenditures related to each grant; however, the procedure was not properly documented to allow examiners to verify amounts reimbursed. Examiners were also not able to confirm a secondary review was in place over this procedure, other than the preparation and review by the Special Education Director. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure nonpublic proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school and that the calculated expenditures are reviewed by another individual. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000. Therefore, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under; and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The school corporation did not have policies and procedures with regards to purchases that exceed $10,000. Two separate vendor transactions were identified in the range below the simplified acquisition threshold and above the micro-purchase threshold as traditional procurement transactions. No quotes or bids related to each transaction were presented for audit purposes, and no documentation to support the rationale for not providing full and open competition was provided. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Four vendors were selected to confirm the school corporation was verifying suspension and debarment status. The school corporation informed examiners they confirm status to Sam.gov, a sufficient procedure, however they did not retain documentation that this was performed prior to disbursing federal funds to the vendors. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic 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 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award 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: . . . (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 cost reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Management of the School Corporation had not established policies and procedures related to federal procurement standards or suspension and debarment verification, as such no procedures were performed to maintain documentation related to the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the School Corporation could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement internal control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implementing an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Special Education grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. 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) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000. Therefore, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under; and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The school corporation did not have policies and procedures with regards to purchases that exceed $10,000. Two separate vendor transactions were identified in the range below the simplified acquisition threshold and above the micro-purchase threshold as traditional procurement transactions. No quotes or bids related to each transaction were presented for audit purposes, and no documentation to support the rationale for not providing full and open competition was provided. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Four vendors were selected to confirm the school corporation was verifying suspension and debarment status. The school corporation informed examiners they confirm status to Sam.gov, a sufficient procedure, however they did not retain documentation that this was performed prior to disbursing federal funds to the vendors. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic 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 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award 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: . . . (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 cost reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Management of the School Corporation had not established policies and procedures related to federal procurement standards or suspension and debarment verification, as such no procedures were performed to maintain documentation related to the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the School Corporation could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement internal control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implementing an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Special Education grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. 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) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000. Therefore, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under; and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The school corporation did not have policies and procedures with regards to purchases that exceed $10,000. Two separate vendor transactions were identified in the range below the simplified acquisition threshold and above the micro-purchase threshold as traditional procurement transactions. No quotes or bids related to each transaction were presented for audit purposes, and no documentation to support the rationale for not providing full and open competition was provided. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Four vendors were selected to confirm the school corporation was verifying suspension and debarment status. The school corporation informed examiners they confirm status to Sam.gov, a sufficient procedure, however they did not retain documentation that this was performed prior to disbursing federal funds to the vendors. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic 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 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award 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: . . . (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 cost reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Management of the School Corporation had not established policies and procedures related to federal procurement standards or suspension and debarment verification, as such no procedures were performed to maintain documentation related to the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the School Corporation could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement internal control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implementing an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Special Education grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. 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) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027X210084, H173X210104, H173A210104, H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000. Therefore, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under; and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The school corporation did not have policies and procedures with regards to purchases that exceed $10,000. Two separate vendor transactions were identified in the range below the simplified acquisition threshold and above the micro-purchase threshold as traditional procurement transactions. No quotes or bids related to each transaction were presented for audit purposes, and no documentation to support the rationale for not providing full and open competition was provided. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Four vendors were selected to confirm the school corporation was verifying suspension and debarment status. The school corporation informed examiners they confirm status to Sam.gov, a sufficient procedure, however they did not retain documentation that this was performed prior to disbursing federal funds to the vendors. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic 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 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award 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: . . . (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 cost reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Management of the School Corporation had not established policies and procedures related to federal procurement standards or suspension and debarment verification, as such no procedures were performed to maintain documentation related to the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the School Corporation could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement internal control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implementing an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Special Education grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.