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.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, reporting, and special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart D and sections 570.200 through .710, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the April 30, 2021 Quick Guide, CDBG-CV PPR Tieback Flexibilities, Title I of the Housing Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-383) (42 USC 5301), 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), 31 USC 1552, Section III.B.7 of CDBG-CV Notice, Section 110(a) of the HCD Act, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, and reporting requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Weekly payroll reports were not reviewed as part of the special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements compliance requirement, resulting in material noncompliance. Cause: Internal controls over financial reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate, allowable costs, cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Wage rate requirements were not complied with. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure wage rate requirement compliance is prioritized when applicable. We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, reporting, and special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart D and sections 570.200 through .710, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the April 30, 2021 Quick Guide, CDBG-CV PPR Tieback Flexibilities, Title I of the Housing Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-383) (42 USC 5301), 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), 31 USC 1552, Section III.B.7 of CDBG-CV Notice, Section 110(a) of the HCD Act, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, and reporting requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Weekly payroll reports were not reviewed as part of the special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements compliance requirement, resulting in material noncompliance. Cause: Internal controls over financial reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate, allowable costs, cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Wage rate requirements were not complied with. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure wage rate requirement compliance is prioritized when applicable. We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching. The related compliance requirements are set in 2 CFR sections 200.330, .331, .501(h), .514(c), and subpart E, 24 CFR Part 576, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of monthly subrecipient reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Timesheet approvals were not documented in all instances to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles. Cause: Internal controls over monthly subrecipient report review for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching compliance requirements and timesheet reviews and approvals were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Subrecipients may not have met required matching compliance requirements. Time could be charged to the grant that is not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching. The related compliance requirements are set in 2 CFR sections 200.330, .331, .501(h), .514(c), and subpart E, 24 CFR Part 576, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of monthly subrecipient reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Timesheet approvals were not documented in all instances to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles. Cause: Internal controls over monthly subrecipient report review for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching compliance requirements and timesheet reviews and approvals were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Subrecipients may not have met required matching compliance requirements. Time could be charged to the grant that is not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title I, Part Q, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 34 USC 10381 et seq., federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial and drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. Cause: Internal controls over financial, drawdown, and progress reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title I, Part Q, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 34 USC 10381 et seq., federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial and drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. Cause: Internal controls over financial, drawdown, and progress reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, matching/level of effort, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-498, as amended (15 USC Sec. 2229a) and Section 4013 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. No internal controls were identified related to the level of effort requirement. Cause: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports, progress reports, and level of effort were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, level of effort, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, matching/level of effort, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-498, as amended (15 USC Sec. 2229a) and Section 4013 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. No internal controls were identified related to the level of effort requirement. Cause: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports, progress reports, and level of effort were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, level of effort, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, reporting, and special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart D and sections 570.200 through .710, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the April 30, 2021 Quick Guide, CDBG-CV PPR Tieback Flexibilities, Title I of the Housing Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-383) (42 USC 5301), 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), 31 USC 1552, Section III.B.7 of CDBG-CV Notice, Section 110(a) of the HCD Act, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, and reporting requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Weekly payroll reports were not reviewed as part of the special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements compliance requirement, resulting in material noncompliance. Cause: Internal controls over financial reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate, allowable costs, cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Wage rate requirements were not complied with. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure wage rate requirement compliance is prioritized when applicable. We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, reporting, and special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subpart D and sections 570.200 through .710, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the April 30, 2021 Quick Guide, CDBG-CV PPR Tieback Flexibilities, Title I of the Housing Community Development Act (HCDA) of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-383) (42 USC 5301), 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), 31 USC 1552, Section III.B.7 of CDBG-CV Notice, Section 110(a) of the HCD Act, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, period of performance, and reporting requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Weekly payroll reports were not reviewed as part of the special tests and provisions ? wage rate requirements compliance requirement, resulting in material noncompliance. Cause: Internal controls over financial reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate, allowable costs, cost principles, and period of performance compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Wage rate requirements were not complied with. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure wage rate requirement compliance is prioritized when applicable. We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching. The related compliance requirements are set in 2 CFR sections 200.330, .331, .501(h), .514(c), and subpart E, 24 CFR Part 576, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of monthly subrecipient reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Timesheet approvals were not documented in all instances to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles. Cause: Internal controls over monthly subrecipient report review for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching compliance requirements and timesheet reviews and approvals were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Subrecipients may not have met required matching compliance requirements. Time could be charged to the grant that is not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching. The related compliance requirements are set in 2 CFR sections 200.330, .331, .501(h), .514(c), and subpart E, 24 CFR Part 576, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of monthly subrecipient reports to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. Timesheet approvals were not documented in all instances to ensure compliance with allowable costs, cost principles. Cause: Internal controls over monthly subrecipient report review for allowable costs, cost principles, and matching compliance requirements and timesheet reviews and approvals were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Subrecipients may not have met required matching compliance requirements. Time could be charged to the grant that is not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title I, Part Q, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 34 USC 10381 et seq., federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial and drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. Cause: Internal controls over financial, drawdown, and progress reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Title I, Part Q, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 34 USC 10381 et seq., federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of financial and drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. Cause: Internal controls over financial, drawdown, and progress reports were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, period of performance, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, matching/level of effort, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-498, as amended (15 USC Sec. 2229a) and Section 4013 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. No internal controls were identified related to the level of effort requirement. Cause: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports, progress reports, and level of effort were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, level of effort, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 in general and 2 CFR section 200.306 require non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal controls over Federal awards, including the requirements for allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, matching/level of effort, and reporting. The related compliance requirements are set in 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts D and E, Appendices III-V11, and sections 200.330, .331, and .501(h), Section 34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-498, as amended (15 USC Sec. 2229a) and Section 4013 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements which also covers allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, and matching requirements were not documented in a manner that is reperformable. No internal controls were identified related to review of progress reports to ensure compliance with reporting requirements. No internal controls were identified related to the level of effort requirement. Cause: Internal controls related to review of drawdown reports, progress reports, and level of effort were not evidenced with clear documentation. Effect: Financial reports may not be accurate; allowable costs, cost principles, cash management, level of effort, matching, and reporting compliance requirements may not be met due to lack of reperformable internal controls. Progress reports may not be accurate. Recommendation: We recommend that the City ensure that all controls for grants be documented in written procedures which should include the name or title of the positions responsible for each control (preparation, review, reconciliation, etc.) and that the performance of the controls be documented in a clear, reperformable manner including the name and date of each responsible individual and which specific control they performed over compliance for the grant.
Finding Number: 2022-021 Prior Year Finding Number: 2021-020 Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Program: U.S. Department of Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Cluster (SNAP) ALN: 10.551, 10.561 Award #: 4VI400408 Award Year: 10/01/20 – 09/30/21 10/01/21 – 09/30/22 Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria – CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, (a) states DHS must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that DHS is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its matching process. Further, 2 CFR Section 200.306 provides detailed criteria for acceptable matching costs. The basic criteria for acceptable matching costs include costs that are necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of program objectives and are allowed under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E (Cost Principles). Condition – During the fiscal year, it appears that management's internal controls over matching compliance were not functioning as intended. We found that management was not monitoring its compliance with the matching requirement throughout the year. Further, we tested 60 of 1,455 matching transactions and noted the following: • 13 instances where DHS did not consistently apply funding allocation in accordance with the Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA). Of the 13, we found 9 instances where hours that should have been charged 100% to federal funds were split 50/50 (local/federal) and 4 instances in which hours that should have been split 50/50 were charged incorrectly. We do note, however, that all such employees did work 100% on the federal program such that time allocated to the match is allowable. • One transaction did not contain the appropriate management approvals. • One transaction totaling $4,500 that did not appear to be an allowable cost was claimed as part of the match. We do note, however, that the overall match appears to have been met with the exclusion of this transaction. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DHS’ compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total expenditures claimed as the match fiscal year 2022 were $3,864,719. The amount sampled is $406,626. Effect – DHS is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Without adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with matching requirements, there is an increased risk that matching will not be properly applied and funding could be jeopardized. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure complete compliance with the matching requirement. Further, lack of monitoring of the match requirement appears to be the result of significant personnel turnover and lack of staffing. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS deploy resources that are given the responsibility to ensure periodic monitoring and compliance of the matching requirement throughout the fiscal year. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The Department of Human Services (DHS) shifted to the electronic Timeforce (STATS) system for payroll, replacing manual processes. Time and attendance require multi-level management approval, finalized by the Agency Head. Payroll is based on Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) cost centers, updated annually with ERP codes. A dedicated Financial Analyst reconciles payroll costs, and a workflow ensures accurate NOPA listings for payroll purposes. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2022-047 Prior Year Finding Number: 2021-042 Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Program: U.S. Department of Education Special Education Cluster ALN: 84.027 (84.027A and 84.027X) Award #: Various Award Period: Various Government Department/Agency: Department of Education (VIDE) Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e. auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Further, in accordance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.306, a State may not reduce the amount of State financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities (or State financial support otherwise made available because of the excess costs of educating those children) below the amount of State financial support provided for the preceding fiscal year. The Secretary reduces the allocation of funds under 20 USC 1411 for any fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the State fails to comply with this requirement by the amount by which the State failed to meet the requirement. Additionally, an LEA can use not more than 15 percent of the amount of federal Part B funds the LEA receives for any fiscal year (less any amount by which it reduces its expenditures under 20 USC 1413(a)(2)(C)) (see III.G.2.1.b.(6) in this section), in combination with other funds, to develop and implement, early intervening services for children in kindergarten through grade 12 who have not been identified under IDEA but need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment (20 USC 1413(f); 34 CFR section 300.226). Condition – We reviewed the level of effort calculations and noted the following: • At the Local Education Agency (LEA) level, we noted that although the two LEAs appeared to meet the required financial support thresholds on the per child basis based on the level of effort compliance requirement, we were unable to verify the number of students for each LEA. • At the State Education Agency (SEA) level, we were unable to review documentation that included the approval /certification of the amounts in the Maintenance of Financial support at the State Education level. In addition, although the calculation shows that VIDE met the Maintenance of Effort at the State level, we were unable to review documentation that would allow us to verify the number of students served in the current year. We reviewed the earmarking documentation and noted the following: • At the State Education Agency (SEA) level, for the ARP grant and non-ARP grant, we were unable to verify the total numbers of students and the number of students in poverty. We were therefore unable to confirm that the allocation of the remaining funds to the LEA agreed with the relative numbers of children living in poverty. • At the Local Education Agency (LEA) level, we were unable to review documentation that the LEA did not use more than 15% of the amount of federal Part B funds to develop and implement early intervening services for children in kindergarten through grade 12 who have not been identified under IDEA but need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment. As a result, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the level of effort and earmarking compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – Not determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of VIDE’s compliance with the specified requirements. Effect – VIDE is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Without adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with level of effort requirements and earmarking, there is an increased risk that level of effort and earmarking requirements will not be properly applied, and funding could be jeopardized. Cause – VIDE did not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure consistent and systematic monitoring of the requirements. Recommendation – We recommend that VIDE improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations relating to the level of effort and earmarking requirements at the SEA and LEA levels by deploying resources that are given the responsibility to ensure periodic monitoring and compliance of the level of effort and earmarking requirements. Views of Responsible Officials - The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. VIDE acknowledges need to enhance monitoring and internal controls. VIDE will establish a team for quarterly reviews of documentation, report issues, and recommend corrective actions. The IDEA State Office will set procedures for verifying accuracy of data reported by LEAs. Comprehensive staff training will ensure understanding of new policies and procedures. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Per the terms of the award, PAX agreed to expend a share of the total program cost financed by PAX and/or others from non-federal funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.306. PAX’s books and records did not contain the necessary information to verify whether this matching requirement was met.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
2022-003 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: 42700-040-0000104184 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2021-2022 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 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: No Recommendation: We recommend the Association establish policies and procedures to ensure that matching contributions are tracked and properly funded.
Finding No. 2022–007 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Eligible Uses – FEMA Federal Program ALN 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Program Name of Federal Agency U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pass-through Entity Central Office of Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency (COR3) Category Non-compliance / Material weakness in internal controls over compliance Compliance Requirement Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Eligible Uses Criteria As per 2 CFR section 200.403(g), except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: • Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. • Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. • Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. • 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. • 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. • 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). • Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. • 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 the closeout procedures, the Central Office of Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency (COR3) office performed a 100% validation on Rental Equipment, supporting documents including contract summary record, invoices, and proofs of payment. As a result of the validation, the total validated amount is $979,259 from an original amount of $1,260,775 submitted by the Corporation for reimbursement. Cause The Corporation claimed ineligible days in rent of equipment, certain invoices were claimed at a greater monthly rate, various expenses were claimed using retroactive memorandum of necessity as well as other transactions were found to not be eligible due to non-compliance with Puerto Rican Contract law, failing to comply with the proper documentation as required by the regulation. Effect The Corporation has to return a total amount of $281,516 due to the unallowed activities that were claimed to the fund. Questioned Cost The known questioned cost was calculated by the amount deemed to be unallowable activity of $281,516. Context • An amount of $26,127 was deducted from invoice #16307820 due to the dates 9/3/18 to 9/15/18 that falls in the 100% cost share." This amount was claimed under a different PW. • For chillers, invoice 16307877 was partially covered (15 days eligible), invoice 16308069 was partially covered (12 days eligible), and invoice 16308131 was partially covered (14 days eligible) due to the service order execution date. • For generators, invoices 16307884, 16307953, 16308033, 16308092, 16308146, 16308207, 16308270, 16308318, 16308357, 16308402, 16308449 and 16308476 were partially covered due to the maximum contract amount. • For generators, invoices 16307820, 16308622, 16308665, and 16308706 were found to not be eligible for reimbursement due to both retroactive execution as well as non-compliance with Puerto Rican Contract law. Identification of a repeat finding This is not a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit. Recommendation The management of the Corporation should reinforce its procedures of the administration of federal funds to ensure the compliance with the requirements with each program. Also, the Corporation should establish communication with the Central Office of Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency in order to obtain instructions for the correction of the non-compliance event and the related questioned cost. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions The Corporation’s management and responsible officers agree with this finding. Please refer to the corrective action plan section for the Corporation’s response on pages 89 to 98.
Finding 2022-004: Matching Agency and Award: State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.561. Condition: Certain salary amounts relating to the federal grant which were included in the matching amounts for the grant were charged through to another federal grant. Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.306 states that the basic criteria for acceptable matching requires that matching amounts are not paid by the federal government under another award, except where the federal statute authorizing a program specifically provides that federal funds made available for such programs can be applied to matching or cost sharing requirements of other federal programs. Cause: The calculation of matching amounts on the SNAP grant in the reporting provided was correct, however, certain amounts related to certain employees working for the Bistro which had been included in the matching calculation were charged through to another federal grant due to an oversight. Context and Effect: Matching amounts related to 3 months during the year for 2 employees of the Bistro should not have been charged through to the other federal grant and were, although the total amount was under the reportable threshold for Questioned costs. Questioned Costs: None Recommendations: The Light House should ensure that all individuals who are responsible for reporting and charging time to federal grants whether under the Light House or the Bistro are aware of related compliance requirements.
REFERENCE: 2022-101 CFDA NUMBER 84.425D ? COVID 19 ? EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND CFDA NUMBER 84.425U ? COVID 19 ? EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ? 2021 PASSED THROUGH ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GRANT NUMBER: S425D210038 & S425U210038 QUESTIONED COSTS N/A CONDITION The following errors were noted during testing of allowable costs, activities and procurement: ? For 1 of 3 vendors tested for procurement, only 1 quote was available for review. ? Vendors were not evaluated for suspension or debarment prior to purchases being made. ? For 3 of 12 disbursements tested, although the purchases are allowable under the grants, the purchases were not included in the grant budgets submitted to the Arizona Department of Education. Amended budgets were submitted on August 31, 2022. CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 Methods of Procurement to be Followed, The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and ?? 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in ? 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: (2) Small purchases - (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.214 Suspension and debarment, Non-federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities. In accordance with 2CFR 200.403 Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs, 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 of this part. 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). In accordance with OMB Compliance Supplement, Part 6 ? Internal Control, non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. EFFECT Program requirements were not complied with. The School may not have received the best pricing for goods or services. CAUSE Procurement procedures were not established to ensure compliance with federal regulations, including retention of quotes from an adequate number of vendors and suspension and debarment requirements. Additionally, internal controls were not designed appropriately to ensure that expenditures charged to the grant were periodically compared to the grant budgets to determine if budget amendments should be submitted. RECOMMENDATION AND BENEFIT A control system should be developed and implemented to monitor when federal expenditures require procurement, that all documentation is obtained and retained and vendors are reviewed for suspension and debarment. Additionally, internal controls should be modified to periodically compare actual expenditures under the grant with submitted budgets. This will help ensure that program requirements are complied with, the School only uses vendors that have not been suspended or debarred and budget amendments are submitted timely. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS See Corrective Action Plan.
REFERENCE: 2022-101 CFDA NUMBER 84.425D ? COVID 19 ? EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND CFDA NUMBER 84.425U ? COVID 19 ? EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ? 2021 PASSED THROUGH ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GRANT NUMBER: S425D210038 & S425U210038 QUESTIONED COSTS N/A CONDITION The following errors were noted during testing of allowable costs, activities and procurement: ? For 1 of 3 vendors tested for procurement, only 1 quote was available for review. ? Vendors were not evaluated for suspension or debarment prior to purchases being made. ? For 3 of 12 disbursements tested, although the purchases are allowable under the grants, the purchases were not included in the grant budgets submitted to the Arizona Department of Education. Amended budgets were submitted on August 31, 2022. CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 Methods of Procurement to be Followed, The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and ?? 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in ? 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: (2) Small purchases - (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.214 Suspension and debarment, Non-federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities. In accordance with 2CFR 200.403 Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs, 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 of this part. 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). In accordance with OMB Compliance Supplement, Part 6 ? Internal Control, non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. EFFECT Program requirements were not complied with. The School may not have received the best pricing for goods or services. CAUSE Procurement procedures were not established to ensure compliance with federal regulations, including retention of quotes from an adequate number of vendors and suspension and debarment requirements. Additionally, internal controls were not designed appropriately to ensure that expenditures charged to the grant were periodically compared to the grant budgets to determine if budget amendments should be submitted. RECOMMENDATION AND BENEFIT A control system should be developed and implemented to monitor when federal expenditures require procurement, that all documentation is obtained and retained and vendors are reviewed for suspension and debarment. Additionally, internal controls should be modified to periodically compare actual expenditures under the grant with submitted budgets. This will help ensure that program requirements are complied with, the School only uses vendors that have not been suspended or debarred and budget amendments are submitted timely. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS See Corrective Action Plan.
Program Information: AL #: 93.243 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services SAMHSA Youth Programs ? Youth Tree, Youth Suicide Prevention, Youth Connections Project Award Numbers: 6H79TI081193-01, 1H79SM082124-01, 1H79SM081540-01 Award Periods: 9/30/18-9/29/23, 6/30/19-6/29/24, 9/30/18-9/29/23 Criteria: The requirements for matching are contained in 2 CFR section 200.306, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. The requirements for level of effort and earmarking are contained in program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Per review of the award documents for Youth Tree, Youth Connections, and Youth Suicide Prevention, key staff have identified the following level of effort requirements: Youth Tree - ? Project Director @ 12.5% ? Youth Services/Recovery Support Coordinator @ 100% ? Lead Evaluator @ contractor level of efforts ? Family Coordinator @ 100% Youth Suicide Prevention- ? Project Director @ 100% Youth Connections Project- ? Project Director @ 100% Any changes in the key staff including level of effort, involving separation from the projects for 3 or more months, or a 25% reduction in time dedicated to the projects requires prior approval from SAMHSA. Condition/Context: During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Tree Program, a different individual was the project director during 2022; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. Approval was received by the funding agency on May 25, 2022. During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Connections Project a different individual was the project director during 2022 and at a different level of effort than noted in the award; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. [ X ] Compliance Finding [ ] Significant Deficiency [ X ] Material Weakness Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period to ensure level of effort changes for key staff were approved prior to the change taking place. Effect: By not obtaining prior approval from the funding agency of key staff changes, the Clinic may have someone in the key role not approved for the position. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Repeat Finding: Yes, 2021-002. Recommendation: We recommend that the Clinic work to obtain prior approval for any key staff changes for the program, and ensure that written approval is received from the funding agency before implementing staffing changes. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared corrective action as detailed in its Corrective Action Plan.
Program Information: AL #: 93.243 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services SAMHSA Youth Programs ? Youth Tree, Youth Suicide Prevention, Youth Connections Project Award Numbers: 6H79TI081193-01, 1H79SM082124-01, 1H79SM081540-01 Award Periods: 9/30/18-9/29/23, 6/30/19-6/29/24, 9/30/18-9/29/23 Criteria: The requirements for matching are contained in 2 CFR section 200.306, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. The requirements for level of effort and earmarking are contained in program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Per review of the award documents for Youth Tree, Youth Connections, and Youth Suicide Prevention, key staff have identified the following level of effort requirements: Youth Tree - ? Project Director @ 12.5% ? Youth Services/Recovery Support Coordinator @ 100% ? Lead Evaluator @ contractor level of efforts ? Family Coordinator @ 100% Youth Suicide Prevention- ? Project Director @ 100% Youth Connections Project- ? Project Director @ 100% Any changes in the key staff including level of effort, involving separation from the projects for 3 or more months, or a 25% reduction in time dedicated to the projects requires prior approval from SAMHSA. Condition/Context: During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Tree Program, a different individual was the project director during 2022; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. Approval was received by the funding agency on May 25, 2022. During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Connections Project a different individual was the project director during 2022 and at a different level of effort than noted in the award; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. [ X ] Compliance Finding [ ] Significant Deficiency [ X ] Material Weakness Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period to ensure level of effort changes for key staff were approved prior to the change taking place. Effect: By not obtaining prior approval from the funding agency of key staff changes, the Clinic may have someone in the key role not approved for the position. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Repeat Finding: Yes, 2021-002. Recommendation: We recommend that the Clinic work to obtain prior approval for any key staff changes for the program, and ensure that written approval is received from the funding agency before implementing staffing changes. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared corrective action as detailed in its Corrective Action Plan.
Program Information: AL #: 93.243 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services SAMHSA Youth Programs ? Youth Tree, Youth Suicide Prevention, Youth Connections Project Award Numbers: 6H79TI081193-01, 1H79SM082124-01, 1H79SM081540-01 Award Periods: 9/30/18-9/29/23, 6/30/19-6/29/24, 9/30/18-9/29/23 Criteria: The requirements for matching are contained in 2 CFR section 200.306, program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. The requirements for level of effort and earmarking are contained in program legislation, Federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Per review of the award documents for Youth Tree, Youth Connections, and Youth Suicide Prevention, key staff have identified the following level of effort requirements: Youth Tree - ? Project Director @ 12.5% ? Youth Services/Recovery Support Coordinator @ 100% ? Lead Evaluator @ contractor level of efforts ? Family Coordinator @ 100% Youth Suicide Prevention- ? Project Director @ 100% Youth Connections Project- ? Project Director @ 100% Any changes in the key staff including level of effort, involving separation from the projects for 3 or more months, or a 25% reduction in time dedicated to the projects requires prior approval from SAMHSA. Condition/Context: During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Tree Program, a different individual was the project director during 2022; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. Approval was received by the funding agency on May 25, 2022. During the audit, we noted that for the Youth Connections Project a different individual was the project director during 2022 and at a different level of effort than noted in the award; this key staff change was not previously approved by the funding agency as required in the grant agreement. [ X ] Compliance Finding [ ] Significant Deficiency [ X ] Material Weakness Cause: There were ineffective controls in place during the period to ensure level of effort changes for key staff were approved prior to the change taking place. Effect: By not obtaining prior approval from the funding agency of key staff changes, the Clinic may have someone in the key role not approved for the position. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Repeat Finding: Yes, 2021-002. Recommendation: We recommend that the Clinic work to obtain prior approval for any key staff changes for the program, and ensure that written approval is received from the funding agency before implementing staffing changes. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared corrective action as detailed in its Corrective Action Plan.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Pass-through from Virginia Office of Community Planning and Development) Assistance Listing #14.267 Finding 2022-003 Known Questioned Costs for a Federal Program Not Audited as a Major Program Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)(4) known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for a program that is not audited as a major program must be reported as an audit finding in the federal awards section of the schedule of findings and questioned costs. In September 2022, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/Virginia Office of Community Planning and Development, identified $1,463 of unallowed expenditures and a deficit of $27,464 in the required cash match under the Continuum of Care program for the year ended December 31, 2021, as a result of monitoring. Condition: The Federal awarding agency has determined, in accordance with 24 CFR 578.51; 24 CFR 578.57, $1,463 of allowable HMIS expenses were not documented and that in accordance with 2 CFR 200.1; 2 CFR 200.103(a)(11); 2 CFR 200.306; 24 CFR 578.73 the grantee failed to match $27,464 on its Continuum of Care rapid rehousing project. Cause: The Federal awarding agency believes staff requesting reimbursement were not fully aware of what constitutes an allowable project expense and that grantee misinterpreted regulations concerning match for Federal grants. Effect: The Federal awarding agency asserts that grantee requested reimbursement for non-reimbursable expenses and did not contribute the required match to its Continuum of Care project. Recommendation: Grantee is required to repay $1,463 for unallowable HMIS and $27,464 for match deficit. Views of responsible official: NRCA has developed a corrective action plan. NRCA is in the process of resolving this matter with the Department of HUD and is currently seeking counsel to ensure this resolution is resolved in an acceptable and appropriate manner. Contact person: Krystal Thompson, Executive Director Corrective Action Plan: See Client's Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Number: 2022-004Prior Year Finding: NoFederal Agency: U.S. Department of EducationFederal Program: COVID-19 - Elementary and Secondary Schools EmergencyRelief Fund (ESSER)Assistance Listing: 84.425C, D, U, WPass-Through Entity: Maryland State Department of EducationPass-Through AwardNumber and Period:201787-01 (3/13/20 ? 9/30/22)Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost PrinciplesType of Finding Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance,Other MattersCriteria or specific requirement:Compliance: Per 2 CFR section 403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meetthe 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 allocablethereto under these principles.(b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award asto types or amount of cost items.(c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed andother activities of the non-Federal entity.(d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a directcost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated tothe Federal award as an indirect cost.(e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, forstate 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 otherfederally-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 of this part.(h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency isauthorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligatedbalances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to ? 200.308(e)(3). Frequently Asked Question C-16 for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs(ESSER), dated May 2021, states in part, that when an LEA has other means of providing for foodservices, such as through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or other Federal programs, theDepartment encourages LEAs to use those Federal funds with the specific purpose of providing foodservices to students prior to using ESSER or GEER funds for this purpose.Control ? Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effectiveinternal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity ismanaging the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms andconditions of the federal award. These internal controls should comply with the guidance in "Standardsfor Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United Statesor the "Internal Control-Integrated Framework," issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizationsof the Treadway Commission (COSO).Condition/Context:The Board charged $3,059,646 to the food service fund to cover salary costs. ESSER programrequirements allow salary costs to be charged to the program only if other Federal funds are notavailable to cover additional labor costs associated with serving meals to students during the pandemicor for other COVID-19 related expenses. The reimbursement rate under the Child Nutrition Cluster(CNC) was sufficient to cover the total costs of operating the food service program for the fiscal year.Since Federal program funds were available to cover these costs under the CNC, the portion chargedto ESSER is unallowable.Questioned Costs:$3,059,646Cause:The Board's internal control processes did not prevent salary costs from being charged to both CNCand ESSER.Effect:The Board charged costs to the program when the expenditures had also been charged to CNC.Recommendation:We recommend that the Board review its policies and procedures to verify that controls are in place toensure expenditures are not reimbursed under more than one Federal Program.Views of responsible officials:Management agrees with the finding.
Finding Number: 2022-004Prior Year Finding: NoFederal Agency: U.S. Department of EducationFederal Program: COVID-19 - Elementary and Secondary Schools EmergencyRelief Fund (ESSER)Assistance Listing: 84.425C, D, U, WPass-Through Entity: Maryland State Department of EducationPass-Through AwardNumber and Period:201787-01 (3/13/20 ? 9/30/22)Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost PrinciplesType of Finding Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance,Other MattersCriteria or specific requirement:Compliance: Per 2 CFR section 403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meetthe 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 allocablethereto under these principles.(b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award asto types or amount of cost items.(c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed andother activities of the non-Federal entity.(d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a directcost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated tothe Federal award as an indirect cost.(e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, forstate 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 otherfederally-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 of this part.(h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency isauthorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligatedbalances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to ? 200.308(e)(3). Frequently Asked Question C-16 for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs(ESSER), dated May 2021, states in part, that when an LEA has other means of providing for foodservices, such as through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or other Federal programs, theDepartment encourages LEAs to use those Federal funds with the specific purpose of providing foodservices to students prior to using ESSER or GEER funds for this purpose.Control ? Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effectiveinternal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity ismanaging the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms andconditions of the federal award. These internal controls should comply with the guidance in "Standardsfor Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United Statesor the "Internal Control-Integrated Framework," issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizationsof the Treadway Commission (COSO).Condition/Context:The Board charged $3,059,646 to the food service fund to cover salary costs. ESSER programrequirements allow salary costs to be charged to the program only if other Federal funds are notavailable to cover additional labor costs associated with serving meals to students during the pandemicor for other COVID-19 related expenses. The reimbursement rate under the Child Nutrition Cluster(CNC) was sufficient to cover the total costs of operating the food service program for the fiscal year.Since Federal program funds were available to cover these costs under the CNC, the portion chargedto ESSER is unallowable.Questioned Costs:$3,059,646Cause:The Board's internal control processes did not prevent salary costs from being charged to both CNCand ESSER.Effect:The Board charged costs to the program when the expenditures had also been charged to CNC.Recommendation:We recommend that the Board review its policies and procedures to verify that controls are in place toensure expenditures are not reimbursed under more than one Federal Program.Views of responsible officials:Management agrees with the finding.
Finding Number: 2022-004Prior Year Finding: NoFederal Agency: U.S. Department of EducationFederal Program: COVID-19 - Elementary and Secondary Schools EmergencyRelief Fund (ESSER)Assistance Listing: 84.425C, D, U, WPass-Through Entity: Maryland State Department of EducationPass-Through AwardNumber and Period:201787-01 (3/13/20 ? 9/30/22)Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost PrinciplesType of Finding Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance,Other MattersCriteria or specific requirement:Compliance: Per 2 CFR section 403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meetthe 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 allocablethereto under these principles.(b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award asto types or amount of cost items.(c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed andother activities of the non-Federal entity.(d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a directcost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated tothe Federal award as an indirect cost.(e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, forstate 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 otherfederally-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 of this part.(h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency isauthorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligatedbalances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to ? 200.308(e)(3). Frequently Asked Question C-16 for Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs(ESSER), dated May 2021, states in part, that when an LEA has other means of providing for foodservices, such as through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or other Federal programs, theDepartment encourages LEAs to use those Federal funds with the specific purpose of providing foodservices to students prior to using ESSER or GEER funds for this purpose.Control ? Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effectiveinternal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity ismanaging the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms andconditions of the federal award. These internal controls should comply with the guidance in "Standardsfor Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United Statesor the "Internal Control-Integrated Framework," issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizationsof the Treadway Commission (COSO).Condition/Context:The Board charged $3,059,646 to the food service fund to cover salary costs. ESSER programrequirements allow salary costs to be charged to the program only if other Federal funds are notavailable to cover additional labor costs associated with serving meals to students during the pandemicor for other COVID-19 related expenses. The reimbursement rate under the Child Nutrition Cluster(CNC) was sufficient to cover the total costs of operating the food service program for the fiscal year.Since Federal program funds were available to cover these costs under the CNC, the portion chargedto ESSER is unallowable.Questioned Costs:$3,059,646Cause:The Board's internal control processes did not prevent salary costs from being charged to both CNCand ESSER.Effect:The Board charged costs to the program when the expenditures had also been charged to CNC.Recommendation:We recommend that the Board review its policies and procedures to verify that controls are in place toensure expenditures are not reimbursed under more than one Federal Program.Views of responsible officials:Management agrees with the finding.