Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Economic Security (Department) awarded $3.3 million to 11 subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 8.3 percent of the Department’s $40.2 million of total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the Department improperly classified $2.4 million of contractor expenditures, or 6 percent of the program’s total federal expenditures, as subrecipient expenditures on the State’s initial schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA). Effect—The Department’s failure to perform required monitoring increased the risk that the $3.3 million of program monies the Department awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program or contract requirements. Further, the Department’s not properly reporting contractor versus subrecipient expenditures on the SEFA increased the risk that subrecipients are not properly identified and monitored by the Department. If monies are spent inconsistent with program and contract requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Further, although the Department corrected the subrecipient misclassification error before the State issued its Single Audit Report, there is an increased risk that the State’s SEFA could contain significant errors and misinform those who are relying on the information. Cause—The Department lacked entity-wide subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures for its divisions to follow and instead relied on each division administering the program to design and implement its own subrecipient-monitoring procedures. However, of the 2 Department divisions administering the program, 1 was not aware of the subrecipient-monitoring requirements, and the other did not follow its subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, as follows: • The Child and Community Services Division (CCSD) personnel responsible for monitoring 5 subrecipients reported that they were not aware of the program’s subrecipient-monitoring requirements because of the program manager being on extended leave, turnover in staff knowledgeable of these requirements, and lack of established policies and procedures over monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities. Further, neither the Department nor the CCSD personnel responsible for identifying subrecipients provided guidance to CCSD personnel responsible for subrecipient monitoring. • The CCSD personnel responsible for monitoring 6 subrecipients reported that they did not follow CCSD’s procedures for monitoring the program’s subrecipients’ activities because they were short-staffed and prioritized monitoring other federal and State grants’ subrecipients’ activities. Further, the incorrect determination and reporting of a subrecipient relationship on the initial SEFA resulted from the Department’s entity-wide form used to determine whether other parties receiving program monies had the role of a subrecipient or contractor lacking detailed guidance for determining the characteristics that support a subrecipient versus a contractor relationship. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Department to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments; reviewing financial and performance reports, verifying single audits were conducted timely; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [d–e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Department to evaluate the substance of its federal award agreements with other parties to determine whether each of the other parties receiving the monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor and whether they are required to comply with any of the federal program’s requirements that the Division should monitor (2 CFR §200.331). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements. 2. Properly classify and report subrecipient expenditures on the State’s SEFA. 3. Develop, implement, and train all divisions on entity-wide written subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures requiring all divisions to: a. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. b. Verify subrecipients receive timely single audits, if required; follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on any audit findings that could potentially affect the program; and issue management decisions for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Department actions taken, if appropriate. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate individuals within each division to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 5. Update the form it uses to determine whether other parties receiving program monies have the role of a subrecipient or contractor to include guidance for how to determine each characteristic of a subrecipient and contractor relationship and require a conclusion to be documented. In addition, train staff to properly complete the form and perform supervisory reviews of it. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b and d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b and d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b and d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b and d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b and d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf