Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Finding #: 2022-003 Period of Performance – Noncompliance (not material to compliance requirement) Identification of Federal Program and Award Program title: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): Public Health Services Act, Title III, Section 330 (Health Center Cluster) CFDA #: 93.224/93.527 Award #: H8DCS36483 Program Year: 2022 Criteria Pursuant to 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h), a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award's period of performance and any costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Pursuant to 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(5), to the extent available, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds available from program income and interest earned on such funds before requesting additional cash payments. Condition During our testing of period of performance, we noted instances of noncompliance relating to the health center’s recognition of expenditures beyond the award’s period of performance. After inspection of invoices and canceled checks supporting disbursements tested, the auditor identified 3 out of 40 expenditures where costs were incurred after the period of performance end date. Upon further investigation, the auditor determined that $153,005 of the $433,455 amount reported as 2022 federal expenditures under award H8DCS36483 was incurred beyond the period of performance end date. Cause Health center personnel were not following financial expense allocation of revenue policies and procedures, which state that federal funds will be utilized according to regulations and what is established on the budget information form submitted with the grant application. Effect Possibility of interest payments due, and of draw down restriction being placed on Payment Management System (PMS) account or denial of future funding. Questioned Costs $153,005 Perspective Information We tested a statistically valid sample of 40 out of 250+ federal expenditures and determined that the audit finding represented a systemic problem. Repeat Finding This finding is not a repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend that management review financial expense allocation of revenue policies and closely monitor grant procedures in place to ensure CAMcare is in compliance with budget information stipulated in grant agreements. Views of Responsible Officials Management recognizes the noncompliance; on November 29, 2023, CAMcare’s CEO, Jillian Hudspeth, and CFO, Christopher Bernardi, agreed with this finding, and explained that the issue occurred during a time period when none of the current authorizing officials were employed by CAMcare.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2022 Pass-Through Entity: Boone County Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/ Cost Principles, Period of Performance Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The Town submitted an application to the Indiana Finance Authority's (IFA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program on June 13, 2019. The Clean Water SRF provides financial assistance to local communities for the planning, design, construction, renovation, improvement, or expansion of wastewater collection and treatment systems, or for other activities that are permitted by the Clean Water Act. The Town's proposed project was for infrastructure improvements and the expansion of its existing waste stabilization lagoon. The Town submitted to IFA the required Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), which provided the information necessary for IFA to determine technical, economic, and environmental adequacy of the proposed project. On November 18, 2020, the Town received approval of its PER from IFA. This approval was contingent upon the issuance of all required permits, including construction permits. After receiving approval, the Town was to contact its financial advisor and its nationally-recognized bond counsel to assist in preparing the appropriate financial and legal documents needed to close the Town's SRF loan. All SRF Loan Program requirements, including bidding the entire SRF-financed project, was to be completed prior to the Town receiving SRF funding. On July 26, 2021, the Town received the necessary permits, including the construction permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management related to the waste stabilization lagoon project. On October 25, 2021, the Town passed Resolution No. 2021-7 A Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Interim Financing with Home National Bank for the Cost of Improvements to the Sewage Works of the Town. As a result, the Town issued Sewage Works Bond Anticipation Notes of 2021 in the principal amount of $1,500,000. On March 11, 2022, the Town received a $1,500,000 subaward from Boone County (County). The subaward was made from the County's allocation of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). On March 12, 2022, the Town made a payment of $1,500,000 to Home National Bank to repay the Sewage Works Bond Anticipation Notes of 2021. The source of the payment was the SLFRF subaward received from the County on March 11, 2022. On April 21, 2022, the Town received a $500,000 subaward from the County. The subaward was made from the County's allocation of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). Effective on April 29, 2022, the Town entered into a Subrecipient Agreement (agreement) with the County. Per the agreement, the County appropriated $2,000,000 of its SLFRF allocation as a subaward to the Town to construct certain improvements and expansions of the Town's sanitary sewer system and lagoon. The agreement is to remain in effect no later than the later of December 31, 2026, or the completion of the project and payment of the final project expenses, unless terminated by the County in writing. Per the agreement, the Town agreed to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and all requirements and published guidance set forth regarding the usage of any and all SLFRF monies. Per SLFRF program regulations, the period of performance for the SLFRF award began on the date the funds were disbursed and ends on December 31, 2026. As such, funds may only be used to cover costs incurred during the period that began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Recipients must liquidate all obligations incurred by December 31, 2024, under the award no later than December 31, 2026, which is the end of the period of performance. Although the Town's project is an eligible water and sewer infrastructure project under the SLFRF Final Rule, the project was initiated and approved by the Town prior to the SLFRF period of performance beginning date of March 3, 2021. Further, the project was not prospective in nature, and the Town incurred a financial obligation prior to the beginning of the period of performance. In addition, the SLFRF subaward received from the County was used to pay the principal on an outstanding debt that was initiated outside the effective date of the subaward agreement. As such, the payment of $1,500,000 was determined to be questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 31 CFR 35.5(a) states: "In general. A recipient may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period beginning March 3, 2021, and ending December 31, 2024, for one or more of the purposes enumerated in sections 602(c)(1) and 603(c)(1) of the Social Security Act, as applicable, including those enumerated in ? 35.6, subject to the restrictions set for in sections 602(c)(2) and 603(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, as applicable." 31 CFR 35.3 states in part: ". . . Obligation means an order placed for property and services and entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment. . . ." 31 CFR 35.6 states in part: "(a) In general. Subject to ?? 35.7 and 35.8, a recipient may use funds for one or more of the purposes described in paragraphs (b) through (f) . . . (b) Responding to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. . . . (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or it negative economic impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure . . . (c) Providing premium pay to eligible workers. . . . (d) Providing government services. A recipient may use funds for the provision of government services to the extent of the reduction in the recipient's general revenue due to the public health emergency, . . . (e) Making necessary investments in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure. . . . (f) Meeting the non-federal matching requirements for Bureau of Reclamation projects. . . ." Interim Final Rule Frequently Asked Questions, Question 4.3, states in part: ". . . Expenses related to financing, including servicing or redeeming notes, would not address the needs of the pandemic response or its negative economic impacts. Such expenses would also not be considered provision of government services, as these financing expenses do not directly provide services or aid to citizens. This applies to paying interest or principal on any outstanding debt instrument, including, for example, short term revenue or tax anticipation notes, or paying fees or issuance costs associated with the issuance of new debt." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4429, states in part: ". . . debt service is not an eligible use of funds either to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts or as a provision of government services to the extent of revenue loss . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (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)." Cause The system of internal controls, as designed and implemented by management of the Town, was not effective to ensure SLFRF funds were used appropriately. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the Town's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, payment on debt associated with a project outside of the period of performance was allowed to occur. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the Town. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $1,500,000 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the Town establish a system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure SLFRF funds are used appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. Auditor's Response It is the Town's responsibility to comply with applicable federal regulations and guidelines when accepting and managing a federal award. The Town had designed and implemented a system of internal controls; however, these internal controls were not effective in ensuring that federal funds were obligated during the period of performance and spent in accordance with Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds are intended to be used prospectively to provide support to governments in responding to the impact of COVID-19. The Town's waste stabilization lagoon project was initiated prior to, and the Town incurred a financial obligation for the project, prior to the pandemic as the contracts and corresponding financing documents were completed prior to the period of performance and could not have been enacted in anticipation of the passage of the Act, as they were executed a year prior to referenced legislation. Furthermore, while "outstanding debt" is not defined in the interim final rule, a general definition is the total amount of money, including interest and fees, owed to a lender or creditor. As such, as soon as the bond anticipation notes were issued, they were "outstanding debt." We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
Criteria or specific requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award?s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h)). A period of performance may contain one or more budget periods. Condition: We identified two instances in which expenses charged to the grant were outside of the period of performance. Context: We selected 30 items from the entire Continuum of Care expenditure population for the year ended December 31, 2022. Of the 30 items selected for testing, two items were identified in which the underlying charge occurred prior to the period of performance. Effect: Amounts were inappropriately charged to the grant. Questioned costs: Amounts incorrectly charged to the grant totaled $32.27, less than the questioned costs threshold of $25,000. Cause: For one of the transactions that was identified that had been charged outside the period of performance, the employee responsible for entering the expense and determining whether it should be included or excluded from the grant reimbursement request was later placed on a performance improvement plan due to errors in data entry. For both transactions, as of December 31, 2022, the grant award had not been closed out, and therefore had not yet been subject to the Organization?s control to review expenses charged in detail and remove those outside of the period of performance. Repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend more training be provided to employees responsible for reviewing grant expenses as well as over the various compliance requirements to ensure expenses are only charged when within the period of performance. We further recommend management tighten up the review process to ensure expenses that are outside the period of performance are noted at the time of the initial review. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Contracts charged for expenses outside of the period of performance have been credited for ineligible expenses. Share has provided additional training to accounting staff about the allowability of expenses being based on both contract criteria and the period of performance. Additionally, training was provided on key identifiers that could flag an exception in allowability based on period of performance, and how to catch this in the review of expenses. Additionally, training was provided on general ledgers transactions that require further review for period of performance allowability during monthly review of expenses prior to preparing invoices. Training included this being a specific area of focus for review during periods when a contract terms and a new contract starts. This training will be provided to all new accounting staff and will be incorporated as refresher trainings if upon review contract and grant administrator expense reviews identify this as being a continued issue by staff performing expense data entry.
Criteria Title 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 75 (45 CFR 75), Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, section 75.303(a) states the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Furthermore, Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 (2 CFR 200.308), Revision of budget and program plans, specifies that recipients of Federal awards must request prior approvals from Federal awarding agencies for 1) Change in a key person specified in the application or the Federal award, and 2) The disengagement from the project for more than three months, or a 25 percent reduction in time devoted to the project, by the approved project director or principal investigator. Condition Bassett Healthcare Network (the Network) failed to properly request approval for the disengagement of a key person specified in the Federal award application. Cause The condition found is due to lack of timeliness in communication regarding the disengagement of key personnel to the Network who are is responsible for requesting Federal awarding agency approval as well as not retaining key documentation. Possible Asserted Effect Failure to identify changes in or disengagement of key personnel and, therefore, failure to request approval from the appropriate Federal awarding agency. Questioned Costs None. Statistical Sampling The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation We recommend the Network enhance the precision level and effectiveness of its internal controls related to the identification of changes to key personnel to ensure proper approval is requested timely. Further, we recommend the implementation of retention Views of Responsible Officials Recommendation accepted. Corrective action in progress. Reference the corrective action plan for further details.
2022-006: Period of Performance – Material Weakness – Originated in 2019 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S Department of Health and Human Services FALN: 93.926 Federal Award Identification Number: H49MC00119-22-00 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2020-2024 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 sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)), the Organization may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: The Organization lacked supporting documentation for certain non-payroll expenses and lacked evidence of review for certain non-payroll expenses. Due to lack of supporting documentation and evidence of approval for payment, certain transactions could not be verified. Of the sixty (60) transactions examined, eight (8) lacked supporting documentation and twenty five (25) lacked evidence of review, and approval for payment. Effect: Management possibly did not expend funds in accordance with the approved detailed line-item budget and grant agreement and possibly expended funds in the incorrect period of performance. Cause: Expenses including approved invoices and/or supporting documentation were not properly maintained in part due to several changes in personnel within the accounting area and overall limited number of personnel for certain functions and lack of board oversight. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $980 and likely questioned costs of $5,791 for Healthy Start. Recommendation: We recommend that internal controls be strengthened and processes implemented to ensure all expenses include supporting documentation/invoice indicating period of performance.
2022-006: Period of Performance – Material Weakness – Originated in 2019 Federal Program Information: Funding Agency: U.S Department of Health and Human Services FALN: 93.926 Federal Award Identification Number: H49MC00119-22-00 Pass Through Entity: State of Georgia Department of Human Services Award Year: 2020-2024 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 sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)), the Organization may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: The Organization lacked supporting documentation for certain non-payroll expenses and lacked evidence of review for certain non-payroll expenses. Due to lack of supporting documentation and evidence of approval for payment, certain transactions could not be verified. Of the sixty (60) transactions examined, eight (8) lacked supporting documentation and twenty five (25) lacked evidence of review, and approval for payment. Effect: Management possibly did not expend funds in accordance with the approved detailed line-item budget and grant agreement and possibly expended funds in the incorrect period of performance. Cause: Expenses including approved invoices and/or supporting documentation were not properly maintained in part due to several changes in personnel within the accounting area and overall limited number of personnel for certain functions and lack of board oversight. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $980 and likely questioned costs of $5,791 for Healthy Start. Recommendation: We recommend that internal controls be strengthened and processes implemented to ensure all expenses include supporting documentation/invoice indicating period of performance.
Formerly 2021-003: Period of Performance: Federal Program: Assistance Listing Nos.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The organization was unable to demonstrate controls over the period of performance for six items selected for testing. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs: There were six expenditures where no documentation could be provided to support that the expense was incurred during the grant period resulting in a questioned cost of $2,699 for 14.267. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over and being unable to locate documentation. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurrences of this deficiency, we recommend that management enhance a set of controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate the period of performance. Perspective: This is a systemic issue in that controls over the requirement have not been developed to ensure the reported information is accurate. Repeat: This is a repeat finding. Responsible Official’s View: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
Formerly 2021-003: Period of Performance: Federal Program: Assistance Listing Nos.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The organization was unable to demonstrate controls over the period of performance for six items selected for testing. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs: There were six expenditures where no documentation could be provided to support that the expense was incurred during the grant period resulting in a questioned cost of $2,699 for 14.267. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over and being unable to locate documentation. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurrences of this deficiency, we recommend that management enhance a set of controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate the period of performance. Perspective: This is a systemic issue in that controls over the requirement have not been developed to ensure the reported information is accurate. Repeat: This is a repeat finding. Responsible Official’s View: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
Formerly 2021-003: Period of Performance: Federal Program: Assistance Listing Nos.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The organization was unable to demonstrate controls over the period of performance for six items selected for testing. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs: There were six expenditures where no documentation could be provided to support that the expense was incurred during the grant period resulting in a questioned cost of $2,699 for 14.267. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over and being unable to locate documentation. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurrences of this deficiency, we recommend that management enhance a set of controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate the period of performance. Perspective: This is a systemic issue in that controls over the requirement have not been developed to ensure the reported information is accurate. Repeat: This is a repeat finding. Responsible Official’s View: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
Formerly 2021-003: Period of Performance: Federal Program: Assistance Listing Nos.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The organization was unable to demonstrate controls over the period of performance for six items selected for testing. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs: There were six expenditures where no documentation could be provided to support that the expense was incurred during the grant period resulting in a questioned cost of $2,699 for 14.267. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over and being unable to locate documentation. Effect: The Organization could have grant expenditures outside the grant period. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurrences of this deficiency, we recommend that management enhance a set of controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate the period of performance. Perspective: This is a systemic issue in that controls over the requirement have not been developed to ensure the reported information is accurate. Repeat: This is a repeat finding. Responsible Official’s View: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
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.
Condition: For the year ended December 31, 2022, the auditee received $2,300,000 in ERA program funds but only spent $2,112,889, consisting of: $1,675,129 in direct expenses, $240,685 in furniture, fixtures, equipment, and leasehold improvements utilized for administering the program, and $197,075 in indirect cost allocations. This resulted in $187,111 unobligated funds for the ERA program that were not refunded to the grantor. Additionally, the organization spent $327,316 out of $337,290 in TANF grant funds received during the same year, which resulted in $9,974 in unobligated funds that were also not returned to the grantor. The failure to have a process to monitor and return unspent or unobligated funds highlights weaknesses in the organization’s cash and financial management processes and an apparent lack of awareness of the obligation to monitor and return unobligated funds to the grantor agency. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.308(e): Requires non‐federal entities to maintain a comparison of actual expenditures with the approved budget and explain any significant variances. 2 CFR 200.344(d): Requires unobligated balances of federal funds to be returned to the awarding agency unless specifically authorized to retain them. 2 CFR 200.303: Requires entities to establish internal controls over cash management to ensure proper use and reporting of federal funds. Cause: The organization’s failure to perform regular budget‐to‐actual comparisons and establish adequate cash management controls contributed to unspent funds remaining unreturned. Additionally, the Organization did not have an internal control process to monitor the performance period of grants which resulted in management being under the impression it could spend funds beyond the performance period in the grant contract. Effect: The lack of budget monitoring and cash management controls: 1. Increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements for unobligated funds. 2. Resulted in the failure to detect and return unobligated balances of $197,085 ($187,111 for the ERA program, $9,974 for the TANF program). 3. Raised concerns about the organization’s oversight and financial management capabilities. Recommendation: 1. Establish and implement procedures for preparing budget‐to‐actual comparisons for all grant programs to monitor variances regularly. 2. Develop cash management controls to ensure timely identification and return of unobligated funds, unless otherwise authorized by the grantor. 3. Strengthen financial oversight to avoid recurrence of these issues and ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Questioned Costs: $187,111 (ERA Program). Management’s Response: Management agrees with the findings and has already initiated corrective actions. Moving forward, budget‐to‐actual comparisons will be prepared monthly, and any discrepancies will be addressed promptly. The organization will work closely with the cognizant agency to arrange for the return of any unobligated funds or, if applicable, seek authorization to retain the funds for use in other similar programs. This process will ensure proper financial management and compliance.
Sections 2 CFR 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h) state that a non-Federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Recipients of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period beginning on March 3, 2021 and ending on December 31, 2024 per section 602(g)(1) of the Social Security Act as added by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2 and Treasury’s Interim Final Rule at 31 C.F.R. § 35.5(a). The County used SLFRF funds to reimburse expenditures that were incurred prior to March 3, 2021. The County identified replacement expenditures within the period of availability which were allowable. The County should implement the appropriate procedures to ensure that only allowable expenditures incurred within the period of performance are used for reimbursement with Federal funds.
Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Name of Federal Program: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-through Entities and Award Periods: Wisconsin Department of Health Services – October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022, April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and Milwaukee County Department of Health Services – January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition: During our testing of reimbursement requests, we identified an invoice that included expenses outside the period of performance for a grant in the federal program. Cause: Sufficient internal controls for reimbursement requests have not been implemented to ensure costs included for reimbursement are within the period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect: An expense charged to the federal program could be disallowed. Questioned Costs: $48,728. Context: This appeared to be an isolated incident from one grant invoice that was tested during audit procedures performed on financial statement account balances. For testing period of performance requirements, we selected a sample of 20 expense transactions and did not identify any expenses charged to grants outside the period of performance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional internal controls for reimbursement requests should be implemented, including having another individual outside the process review and approve reimbursement requests prior to submission or require detailed accounting expense transactions be included with reimbursement requests to ensure expenses have been incurred within the period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and the Organization and outsourced accounting rep will meet monthly to review cost reports and correlating invoices together before approving and submitting to the funder to ensure expenses submitted are within the grant performance period.
Finding #: 2022-003 Period of Performance – Noncompliance (not material to compliance requirement) Identification of Federal Program and Award Program title: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): Public Health Services Act, Title III, Section 330 (Health Center Cluster) CFDA #: 93.224/93.527 Award #: H8DCS36483 Program Year: 2022 Criteria Pursuant to 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h), a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award's period of performance and any costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Pursuant to 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(5), to the extent available, the non-Federal entity must disburse funds available from program income and interest earned on such funds before requesting additional cash payments. Condition During our testing of period of performance, we noted instances of noncompliance relating to the health center’s recognition of expenditures beyond the award’s period of performance. After inspection of invoices and canceled checks supporting disbursements tested, the auditor identified 3 out of 40 expenditures where costs were incurred after the period of performance end date. Upon further investigation, the auditor determined that $153,005 of the $433,455 amount reported as 2022 federal expenditures under award H8DCS36483 was incurred beyond the period of performance end date. Cause Health center personnel were not following financial expense allocation of revenue policies and procedures, which state that federal funds will be utilized according to regulations and what is established on the budget information form submitted with the grant application. Effect Possibility of interest payments due, and of draw down restriction being placed on Payment Management System (PMS) account or denial of future funding. Questioned Costs $153,005 Perspective Information We tested a statistically valid sample of 40 out of 250+ federal expenditures and determined that the audit finding represented a systemic problem. Repeat Finding This finding is not a repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend that management review financial expense allocation of revenue policies and closely monitor grant procedures in place to ensure CAMcare is in compliance with budget information stipulated in grant agreements. Views of Responsible Officials Management recognizes the noncompliance; on November 29, 2023, CAMcare’s CEO, Jillian Hudspeth, and CFO, Christopher Bernardi, agreed with this finding, and explained that the issue occurred during a time period when none of the current authorizing officials were employed by CAMcare.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.241 Program: Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, COVID-19 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: 558951 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: The Village allocated expenditures to programs during 2022 based on a direct allocation methodology. This allocation is done manually, and the support was inconsistently maintained. During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 12 of the 60 samples selected for testing within Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, did not have sufficient support for the allocation of the costs, or the costs themselves. Cause: The Village did not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that sufficient documentation was maintained to support the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure costs are allowable and reimbursable, including controls over review of allocation methodologies, the Village could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $6,830 Likely Questioned Costs Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS: $234,595 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS in 2022 were $1,173,061. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that sufficient documentation be maintained to support any allocations of costs as required by §200.403. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet and implementing new procedures to ensure accurate expenditure reporting.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Federal Agencies: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 14.218, 14.231 Program: CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster, Emergency Solutions Grants Program, COVID-19 Emergency Solutions Grants Program Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: HHI-21-03, HHI-22-21, NCIP-FY20-010, HHI-21-35, HHI-20-21, 563770 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.403 states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §200.300 through §200.309. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to §200.308(e)(3).” Condition: During our testing of costs (excluding payroll and fringe benefits, see finding 2022-004), we noted in accordance with §200.403(g) that 10 of the 60 samples selected for testing within CDBG- Entitlement Grants Cluster, did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. For the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, 29 of the 60 samples selected for testing did not have sufficient support for their rationale regarding the allocation of the costs. Cause: The Village allocates many costs between individual grants and grant programs, without maintaining adequate support for the rationale behind the allocation of costs. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate support for the rationale behind cost allocations, the Village cannot adequately document that costs are fairly charged between individual grants and grant programs. The Village could charge expenses to federal programs that are not based on the programs usage. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Likely Questioned Costs CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster: None above the $25,000 reporting threshold. Known Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $6,232 Likely Questioned Costs Emergency Solutions Grants Program: $38,701 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Village’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Nonpayroll costs for the CDBG-Entitlement Grants Cluster in 2022 were $444,085 with known questioned costs of $7,732 and likely questioned costs of $20,400. Nonpayroll costs for the Emergency Solutions Grants Program in 2022 were $1,854,771. Questioned costs consist of amounts lacking underlying support or amounts in excess of supported allocations. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-008. Recommendation: We recommend that the Village carefully document the rationale or justification for cost allocations. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding. Management is developing a cost allocation worksheet, which will include documentation for the rationale or justification for cost allocations.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.
Finding 2022-005 Identification of the Federal Program: Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Defense Assistance Listing: Various ? Research & Development (R&D) Cluster Pass-Through Grantor: Various Pass-Through Award Number: Various Pass-Through Award Period: 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance States the Following Regarding Internal Control: ?The Non-Federal Entity Must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).? 2 CFR section 200.403(h)) states: ?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: Management does not track expenses by budget period for Corewell Health East federal Research and Development (R&D) grants and is therefore unable to support that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance. Cause: Management?s General Ledger system was not designed to record R&D expenditures by budget period. Effect or Potential Effect: Expenses could be expensed outside the period performance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Corewell Health East has twenty-five R&D grants. We were unable to test period of performance for seven grants, totalling $765,791, which had budget periods beginning or ending during the audit period. As such, we were unable to conclude if expenses were incurred in the appropriate budget period. Total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule for Corewell Health East are $3,348,876 for the year ended December 31, 2022, The total R&D Cluster expenditures reported on the Schedule are $10,507,754 for the year ended December 31, 2022. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management design appropriate cost structure to monitor R&D expenditures by performance period Views of Responsible Officials: The hierarchy and functionality of the Corporate financial management system does not support separate budget periods during a single award project period. This was managed manually by the CHE Sponsored Programs Administration via a customized internal report. Effective 7/1/2023, the System transitioned Corewell Health East onto Workday, the common financial management system used by Corewell Health West. The Workday financial management system includes a separate grant module that has the capability to establish defined budget periods under a single award. With the functionality now enabled by Workday, we do not anticipate any barriers to maintaining defined budget periods within an award funding cycle to assure that expenses are recorded in the appropriate period of performance.