2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2023-003 Unallowable Matching Contributions – Compliance and Internal Controls over Matching (Material Weakness) Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture FALN: 10.561 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development FALN: 14.231 Federal Award Identification Numbers: All under this program. See Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Pass Through Entity: Gwinnett County, Dekalb County, Cobb County, Fulton County Award Year: 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Criteria: Under 2 CFR Section 200.303(a), non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Additionally, under 2 CFR Section 200.306(b) any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions cannot be included as contributions for any other Federal award. They also cannot be paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs. Condition: The Association used the same matching contributions on both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Additionally, some matching contributions under FALN 10.561 were paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. Effect: The lack of processes and controls set up to track matching contributions resulted in potentially unallowable matching contributions made to both FALN 10.561 and FALN 14.231. Cause: The Association was not aware of the requirements related to matching and did not have processes and controls set up to track this information. Questioned Costs: None Perspective: This finding represents a systemic problem as it potentially affects the matching requirement across all federal programs. Repeat Finding: Yes, this is a repeat of 2022-003 Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
Knott County Fiscal Court Did Not Maintain Proper FEMA Documentation Federal Program: Assistance Listing #97.036 FEMA Public Assistance Program Award Number and Year: FEMA-4663DRKYP00000001 2022 Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Thru Agency: U. S. Department of Homeland Security and State Department of Military Affairs Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance Type of Finding: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Amount of Questioned Costs: $1,212,805 COVID Related: No Knott County had severe flooding in July of 2022. This event qualified Knott County Fiscal Court to receive federal funding to recover from the disaster. Paperwork is maintained to document and track work that is necessary and to determine the portion eligible for coverage by FEMA. The fiscal court did not maintain proper FEMA documentation. Out of 36 disbursements tested, 11 did not have any accompanying information that would detail the expected scope of work or cost. The 11 disbursements that did not have appropriate documentation totaled $1,212,805 in questioned cost. The fiscal court has not sufficiently overseen the expenditure of federal funds and did not prioritize the implementation of an effective internal control system. Tracking of the FEMA projects was consistently executed on completed projects but was not available for the in-progress projects that were tested. The lack of documentation to appropriately connect the disbursements to FEMA authorized work resulted in the determination that the county was not in compliance with the applicable attributes. An inaccurate implementation of controls and the lack of management oversight and involvement can cause noncompliance with federal requirements and jeopardize the fiscal court’s future funding. The lack of appropriate documentation also prevented the ability to rely on supplementary information, such as the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 2 CFR part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards provides guidance on Federal regulations pertaining to Federal Awards. 2 CFR 200.306, regarding cost sharing or matching, states that any shared costs or matching funds must meet all of the following criteria: verifiable from the non-Federal entity’s records; not included as contributions for any other Federal award; necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives; allowable under subpart E of this part; not paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award except where allowed; provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency; and conform to other provisions of this part, as applicable. 2 CFR 200.318(i), regarding general procurement standards, requires Non-Federal entities to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. 2 CFR 200.329, concerning monitoring and reporting program performance, states that the non-Federal entity is responsible for oversight of the operations of the Federal award supported activities. The non-Federal entity must monitor its activities under Federal awards to assure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and performance expectations are being achieved. Monitoring by the non-Federal entity must cover each program, function, or activity. We recommend the Knott County Fiscal Court implement adequate internal controls to ensure federal compliance requirements are met. In addition, the fiscal court should maintain documentation for all project activity to effectively track work that is necessary and to determine the portion eligible for coverage under Federal programs.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-031 (See Finding Reference Number 2023-003) FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2021G996117; 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2021 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 Subpart E §200.403, Factor affecting allowability of costs, establishes that: “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. For example, a cost must not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for State and local governments and Indian Tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See §§ 200.300 through 200.309.” STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over allowable costs requirements for TANF program, we selected seven (7) voucher payments related to activities of prevention. We found the following deficiencies: (a) When we obtained the vouchers related to payments of a contractor, we also requested the contract and the proposal, we noted that the Entity is a subrecipient and not a contractor. The transactions related to this contract were not identified as subrecipient in the SEFA (see Finding Reference Number 2023-058). We audited three (3) vouchers of this subrecipient, in each one, this Entity claimed reimbursement for utilities, supplies, and materials. When we observed documentation in the file, we noted that the entity administers other Federal awards; and no evidence was observed in the voucher that proper distribution of administrative costs is made among all Federal awards. In addition, the contract required a certification indicating absence of duplication of services provided, and it was not included in the invoice or supporting documentation. (b) In the other four (4) vouchers evaluated related to payments to contractors, reimbursement claimed by the contractors included the purchase of laptops and digital screens. No evidence was provided that indicated who is responsible for this equipment, where it is located, and how it is safeguarded. These suppliers were contracted to provide training and workshops for participants of TANF. In the invoices evaluated we noted that ADSEF is paying for all costs of the entity, including supplies, maintenance of vehicles, mileage for some personnel, telephone charges, internet, and other utilities. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. Total transactions related to prevention services were one-hundred seven (107), amounting to $2,411,184. ADSEF does not have internal guidance and procedures establishing how transactions with sub-recipients will be handled and how they are accounted for. Furthermore, there are no internal controls documenting the evaluation of the operational costs of suppliers contracted to provide a service, and their operational expenses must be covered by them and not claimed directly from the program. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have a work plan and internal control guidance that clearly defines permissible activities and describes the activities that will be carried out to meet program requirements through the contracting of suppliers and sub-recipients. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF may be incurring non-allowable costs by reimbursing expenses not properly stipulated in the allowable cost regulations for program administration. Furthermore, the expenses incurred by the sub-recipient are not identified in the database in a manner that allows them to be identified for the preparation of the SEFA. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend management to establish internal control processes consistent with the requirements of 2 CFR 200. In addition, design and implement internal control processes to meet the requirements of subrecipient monitoring and procurement standards.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2023-005 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $236,115 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b).” Condition and Context: During our cash basis reconciliation of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2023 to the State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s cash basis expenditures of $4,295,065 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $235,290 of OMES CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 (ARPA Advance Grants) for administrative costs to run the grant were expended on AL #84.825C - Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) and AL #21.023 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). In addition, during our accounts payable reconciliation of the OMES SEFA for SFY 2023 to State of Oklahoma - Statewide Accounting System, we reconciled the agency’s accounts payable expenditures of $27,323 for AL #21.027. However, we noted $825 of CSLFRF expenditures from class fund 488 was used on expenditures for AL #84.825C - GEER. Cause: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) did not have adequate controls in place to prevent expending CSLFRF class fund 488 funds on other federal programs. Effect: Unallowable costs totaling $236,115 were charged to CSLFRF grant for SFY 2023. Recommendation: We recommend OMES develop and implement procedures to ensure CSLFRF funds (class fund 488) are not expended on other federal programs. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Parker Wise Anticipated Completion Date: Controls have been put into place and will continue through the end of the Federal Period of Performance and closeout. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
GEAR UP Program In-Kind Match Significant Deficiency DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALN #: 84.334A Federal Award Identification #: P334A170060 Condition: The University did not always have supporting documentation for the in-kind match or accurate reporting of the in-kind match for the GEAR UP federal program. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.306 Questioned Costs: $0 Context: Out of 23 GEAR UP in-kind match items tested, supporting documentation was not located for one item and for another item, the support provided did not agree to the amount reported to Department of Education. Cause: Turnover in GEAR UP staffing. Effect: Record retention issue and inaccurate reporting of match. Identification as repeat finding, if applicable: N/A Recommendation: We recommend that the University keep their documents in a central location and verify in-kind match reported annually against supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
GEAR UP Program In-Kind Match Significant Deficiency DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ALN #: 84.334A Federal Award Identification #: P334A170060 Condition: The University did not always have supporting documentation for the in-kind match or accurate reporting of the in-kind match for the GEAR UP federal program. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.306 Questioned Costs: $0 Context: Out of 23 GEAR UP in-kind match items tested, supporting documentation was not located for one item and for another item, the support provided did not agree to the amount reported to Department of Education. Cause: Turnover in GEAR UP staffing. Effect: Record retention issue and inaccurate reporting of match. Identification as repeat finding, if applicable: N/A Recommendation: We recommend that the University keep their documents in a central location and verify in-kind match reported annually against supporting documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Repeat of Prior Audit Finding 2021-003 Federal Program: Trans-National Crime Federal Agencies: United States Department of State- United States Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Federal Assistance Listing Number: 19.705 Federal Award Year: December 31, 2022 Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200.303(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires all non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that a non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 2 CFR Part 200.306 of the Uniform Guidance requires shared costs or matching funds be accepted as part of the non-Federal entity's cost sharing or matching when they are verifiable, necessary and reasonable and are allowable. Condition/Context: Panthera Corporation prepares and reviews a quarterly expenditure file to track and compile quarterly costs and calculate the cost-sharing component to be submitted for reimbursement to the funding agency. For the selection of 2 quarterly expenditure files, we were unable to verify that the file was formally reviewed. This was not a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: None Cause: Panthera Corporation developed written matching procedures, however, did not follow such procedures by including formal, written review of quarterly expenditure files. Effect: Panthera Corporation's control design and operation does not provide reasonable assurance that Panthera Corporation is managing the matching compliance requirement of the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: We recommend that Panthera Corporation implement documented approval on their quarterly expenditure files. Views of Responsible Officials: Management acknowledges the finding and has implemented an approval process within Chrome River.
2022-003 Matching Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Program: Continuum of Care Program (ALN 14.267) Federal Assistance Identification Number or Pass-Through Numbers: MN0311L5K002007, MN0364L5K002005, MN0372L5K002105 Federal Award Years: Year ended December 31, 2022; Year ended December 31, 2022; Year ended October 31, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a), requires that the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 24 CFR 578.73(a) requires that the recipient must match all grant funds, except for leasing funds, with no less than 25 percent of funds or in-kind contributions from other sources. For grantees where there is more than one grant agreement, the 25 percent match must be provided on a grant-by-grant basis. Cash match must be used for the costs of activities that are eligible as program costs under 24 CFR 578 Subpart D. 2 CFR 200.306(b)(1) requires that any shared costs or matching funds must be verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records. Condition: While testing the matching requirement, we noted that internal controls are not properly designed. While the County was able to provide documentation that the matching requirement was met, we noted the following: ? The documentation to demonstrate that the required match was met was on a calendar-year basis for all grants in total instead of on the required grant-by-grant basis. ? The data utilized in determining the match requirement was met was obtained from the State?s information system, MAXIS, and the County did not retain this data. ? Reporting of the match on the HUD Annual Performance Report is completed by multiplying the total direct costs by the required match percentage instead of the actual match. ? There was a lack of evidence that a supervisory review was periodically performed over matching. In addition, while we were able to test a manual compensating control over matching, we were not able to review and test the automated application controls and related ITGCs within the MAXIS system. The State was not able to provide information regarding the design and implementation of MAXIS system controls, nor were we able to test those controls directly. Cause: Historically the County has believed that the ability to demonstrate the match requirement was met was sufficient. There are no written policies and procedures over the review of the matching requirement. In addition, the State was not able to provide information regarding the design and implementation of MAXIS system controls nor were we able to review and test the MAXIS system due to complexities of data privacy and resources within the State. Effect: Without written policies and procedures over the review of the matching requirement and without documentation of the review, there is an increased risk of noncompliance with the matching requirement. Context: We reviewed the matching requirements for all awards for this ALN that required a match during the year. Questioned Costs: None Repeat Finding?: No Recommendation: We recommend that controls be established to include determination of the match on a on a grant-by-grant basis more often than annually, that documentation of this determination is retained in the County?s records, and that a review is performed and documented. In addition, we suggest that the County encourage the State to provide an independent audit of the design and implementation of MAXIS system controls. View of responsible officials of the auditee: Hennepin County has reviewed and agrees with the finding and recommendation.
Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.
Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.
Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.
Federal Agency: Department of Justice Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 16.756, 16.726 Programs: Court Appointed Special Advocates, Juvenile Mentoring Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 2018-CH-BX-K001, 15PJDP-21-GK-02762-CASA, 2019-MU-FX-0004, 2020-JU-FX-0028 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under federal awards: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: National CASA/GAL allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding salaries, see finding 2022-003), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that: For Court Appointed Special Advocates: • One of 60 transactions was partially charged in the incorrect fiscal period. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 19 of 60 transactions had inconsistent allocation methods (based on an estimated metric such as estimated time on program or square feet space utilized) applied to costs. • 21 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program: • One of 60 transactions lacked documentation of all required reviews and approvals. • One of 60 transactions the incorrect allocation rate was utilized. • One of 60 transactions underlying supporting documentation was not retained. • 27 of 60 transactions lacked documentation of review and approval of the allocation of costs made through journal entries. Cause: National CASA/GAL did not have procedures in place to document, and maintain the documentation of, the review and approval of the allocation methodology and the allocation of costs (journal entries). Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, National CASA/GAL could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs Court Appointed Special Advocates: Below reporting threshold. Questioned Costs Juvenile Mentoring Program: Below reporting threshold. Context: This is a condition identified per review of National CASA/GAL’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Court Appointed Special Advocates in 2022 were $6,500,295. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $165,919. Nonpayroll costs for the Juvenile Mentoring Program in 2022 were $2,401,373. The sample tested consisted of 60 transactions totaling $151,177. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. For Court Appointed Special Advocates, four transactions resulted in questioned costs of $3,139. For the Juvenile Mentoring Program, two transactions resulted in questioned costs of $456. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that policies and procedures be updated to ensure underlying support, as well as support for allocations is appropriately maintained as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding that procedures should specify that documentation of review and approval of both the costs charged and the allocation method of costs charged to federal grants be maintained. Management put policies in place to capture the documentation and maintenance of documentation indicating supervisor review and approval.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.306(b) identifies the requirements for all Federal awards that any shared costs or matching funds and all contributions, including cash and third-party in-kind contributions, must be accepted as part of the non- Federal entity's cost sharing or matching when such contributions meet all of the following criteria: (1) Are verifiable from the non-Federal entity's records; (2) Are not included as contributions for any other Federal award; (3) Are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of project or program objectives; (4) Are allowable under 2 CFR 200 Subpart E; (5) Are not paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award, except where the Federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that Federal funds made available for such program can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other Federal programs; (6) Are provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency; and (7) Conform to other provisions of this part, as applicable. Condition: During our testing, the Corporation was unable to provide sufficient and appropriate evidence to substantiate that the matched or shared cost were received and accepted in conformance with the criteria listed above or award agreement. Cause: The Corporation did not have formal policies and procedures over matching or cost sharing. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper internal controls and policies and procedures in place to monitor and review the matching requirements could result in Federal noncompliance. Questioned costs: None Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Corporation’s compliance with specified requirements over matching or cost sharing. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation establish formal internal controls, and documentation of their performance, relating to the matching requirements of the related grant award. View of Responsible Officials: Due to turnover of several key financial executives and personnel and lack of formal documentation of current policies and procedures, the Corporation did not maintain sufficient or appropriate evidence to substantiate that the matched or shared cost were spent in conformance with the criteria listed above or award agreement.
Federal Program: Trans-National Crime Federal Agency: United States Department of State - United States Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Federal Assistance Listing Number: 19.705 Federal Award Year: December 31, 2022 Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200.303(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires all non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that a non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 2 CFR Part 200.306 of the Uniform Guidance requires shared costs or matching funds be accepted as part of the non-Federal entity's cost sharing or matching when they are verifiable, necessary and reasonable and are allowable. Condition/Context: Panthera Corporation prepares and reviews a quarterly expenditure file to track and compile quarterly costs and calculate the cost-sharing component to be submitted for reimbursement to the funding agency. For the selection of two quarterly expenditure files, we were unable to verify that the file was formally reviewed. This was not a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: None Cause: Panthera Corporation developed written matching procedures, however, did not follow such procedures by including formal, written review of quarterly expenditure files. Effect: Panthera Corporation's control design and operation does not provide reasonable assurance that Panthera Corporation is managing the matching compliance requirement of the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: We recommend that Panthera Corporation implement documented approval on their quarterly expenditure files. Views of Responsible Officials: Management acknowledges the finding and has implemented an approval process within Chrome River.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.