Finding 2022-002: Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Department: Americorps (Corporation for National and Community Service) Pass-through Agencies: Connecticut Office of Higher Education Illinois Department of Public Health Illinois Department of Human Services Indiana Department of Workforce Development Wisconsin National and Community Service Board Americorps State and National, Federal Assistance Listing Number 94.006 Criteria 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart D - Post Federal Award Requirements Standards for Financial and Program Management, Section 200.332. Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that ?All pass-through entities must: (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in Section 200.208 Specific conditions. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. (3) Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by Section 200.521 Management decision. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in Section 200.425 Audit services. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in Section 200.501 Audit requirements. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in Section 200.338 Remedies for noncompliance of this part and in program regulations.? Condition During the current audit period, we noted Public Allies did not perform adequate monitoring of its subrecipient as required by Federal regulations. Cause Based on discussions with management, this occurred due to staffing turnovers, which resulted in challenges and a disruption in the planned implementation and/or carrying out of the monitoring plan and risk assessment as well as collection of adequate documentation to meet requirements. Effect Failure to adequately communicate and monitor the activities and performance of a subrecipient could result in Federal awards being used for unauthorized purposes and Public Allies? inability to adequately perform risk assessments on its subrecipient(s). Questioned Costs None. Context During the current audit period, we noted 12 subrecipients were awarded funds. During our review of 3 subrecipients, we noted adequate documentation was not maintained to support both the financial and programmatic monitoring of these subrecipients. Specifically, we noted documentation was not maintained to support Public Allies? evaluation of each subrecipients risk of noncompliance. Also, while Public Allies did obtain a copy of the subrecipient?s Single Audit Report, we were not provided with any evidence of Public Allies? review of the report, including and if applicable, issuance of a management decision on audit findings noted as required by 2 CFR 200.332d(3). Identification of Repeated Findings None. Recommendation We recommend Public Allies update its written procedures to document the monitoring of its subrecipients in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332. Also, adequate staff resources and training should be in place to oversee the process of completing the required subrecipient monitoring, including documentation of the evaluation of the subrecipient risk of noncompliance and review of the Single Audit report, as required by federal regulations. Views of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Action Public Allies agree with the finding and recommendation. See Public Allies? Corrective Action Plan on pages 41-42.
Finding 2022-002: Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Department: Americorps (Corporation for National and Community Service) Pass-through Agencies: Connecticut Office of Higher Education Illinois Department of Public Health Illinois Department of Human Services Indiana Department of Workforce Development Wisconsin National and Community Service Board Americorps State and National, Federal Assistance Listing Number 94.006 Criteria 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart D - Post Federal Award Requirements Standards for Financial and Program Management, Section 200.332. Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that ?All pass-through entities must: (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in Section 200.208 Specific conditions. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. (3) Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by Section 200.521 Management decision. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in Section 200.425 Audit services. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in Section 200.501 Audit requirements. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in Section 200.338 Remedies for noncompliance of this part and in program regulations.? Condition During the current audit period, we noted Public Allies did not perform adequate monitoring of its subrecipient as required by Federal regulations. Cause Based on discussions with management, this occurred due to staffing turnovers, which resulted in challenges and a disruption in the planned implementation and/or carrying out of the monitoring plan and risk assessment as well as collection of adequate documentation to meet requirements. Effect Failure to adequately communicate and monitor the activities and performance of a subrecipient could result in Federal awards being used for unauthorized purposes and Public Allies? inability to adequately perform risk assessments on its subrecipient(s). Questioned Costs None. Context During the current audit period, we noted 12 subrecipients were awarded funds. During our review of 3 subrecipients, we noted adequate documentation was not maintained to support both the financial and programmatic monitoring of these subrecipients. Specifically, we noted documentation was not maintained to support Public Allies? evaluation of each subrecipients risk of noncompliance. Also, while Public Allies did obtain a copy of the subrecipient?s Single Audit Report, we were not provided with any evidence of Public Allies? review of the report, including and if applicable, issuance of a management decision on audit findings noted as required by 2 CFR 200.332d(3). Identification of Repeated Findings None. Recommendation We recommend Public Allies update its written procedures to document the monitoring of its subrecipients in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332. Also, adequate staff resources and training should be in place to oversee the process of completing the required subrecipient monitoring, including documentation of the evaluation of the subrecipient risk of noncompliance and review of the Single Audit report, as required by federal regulations. Views of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Action Public Allies agree with the finding and recommendation. See Public Allies? Corrective Action Plan on pages 41-42.
Finding 2022-002: Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Department: Americorps (Corporation for National and Community Service) Pass-through Agencies: Connecticut Office of Higher Education Illinois Department of Public Health Illinois Department of Human Services Indiana Department of Workforce Development Wisconsin National and Community Service Board Americorps State and National, Federal Assistance Listing Number 94.006 Criteria 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart D - Post Federal Award Requirements Standards for Financial and Program Management, Section 200.332. Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that ?All pass-through entities must: (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in Section 200.208 Specific conditions. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. (3) Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by Section 200.521 Management decision. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in Section 200.425 Audit services. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F?Audit Requirements of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in Section 200.501 Audit requirements. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in Section 200.338 Remedies for noncompliance of this part and in program regulations.? Condition During the current audit period, we noted Public Allies did not perform adequate monitoring of its subrecipient as required by Federal regulations. Cause Based on discussions with management, this occurred due to staffing turnovers, which resulted in challenges and a disruption in the planned implementation and/or carrying out of the monitoring plan and risk assessment as well as collection of adequate documentation to meet requirements. Effect Failure to adequately communicate and monitor the activities and performance of a subrecipient could result in Federal awards being used for unauthorized purposes and Public Allies? inability to adequately perform risk assessments on its subrecipient(s). Questioned Costs None. Context During the current audit period, we noted 12 subrecipients were awarded funds. During our review of 3 subrecipients, we noted adequate documentation was not maintained to support both the financial and programmatic monitoring of these subrecipients. Specifically, we noted documentation was not maintained to support Public Allies? evaluation of each subrecipients risk of noncompliance. Also, while Public Allies did obtain a copy of the subrecipient?s Single Audit Report, we were not provided with any evidence of Public Allies? review of the report, including and if applicable, issuance of a management decision on audit findings noted as required by 2 CFR 200.332d(3). Identification of Repeated Findings None. Recommendation We recommend Public Allies update its written procedures to document the monitoring of its subrecipients in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332. Also, adequate staff resources and training should be in place to oversee the process of completing the required subrecipient monitoring, including documentation of the evaluation of the subrecipient risk of noncompliance and review of the Single Audit report, as required by federal regulations. Views of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Action Public Allies agree with the finding and recommendation. See Public Allies? Corrective Action Plan on pages 41-42.
Assistance Listing 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Condition: Two out of two subrecipients selected for testing did not have one or more required elements defined in §2CFR 200.332 (a)(1) & (2) in their subrecipient agreements with the Mayor’s Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity. For one subrecipient, the contract did not contain specific language indicating the Federal assistance listing number or title. For the other subrecipient, the contract did not have the federal compliance language to ensure subrecipient’s compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms of the federal award. The funding source for this program is the PA Department of Human Services. Criteria: §2CFR 200.332 (a)(1) & (2) state that the pass-through entity must ensure every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient by including assistance listing numbers and titles, and the requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Effect: Failure to provide all the required subaward information may result in noncompliance at the subrecipient level. Cause: The Mayor’s Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity failed to include the required elements in the subrecipient agreements. Recommendation: We recommend that management modify and/or strengthen its current policies and procedures to ensure that all required award information and applicable requirements are communicated to subrecipients at the time of subaward. Views of the Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation. Starting from FY2024, MOCEO will include a Notice of Award document for all subrecipients contracts. This document will contain the necessary OMB required information to clearly identify award details for the subrecipient. Contact Person: Allison Elliott, Director of Finance, Mayor’s Office of Community Empowerment and Opportunity, 215-685-3626
Children and Youth Programs Assistance Listing 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Assistance Listing 93.658 Foster Care – Title IV-E Act 148 Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Condition: For all 32 sampled Department of Human Services (DHS) subrecipients, the subaward letters sent by DHS to its subrecipients did not identify either the federal program names or the assistance listing numbers. The programs are funded through the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Criteria: Per the OMB’s Uniform Guidance 2 CFR section 200.332 (a)(1), the pass-through entity must ensure every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes certain required information at the time of the subaward. Required information includes the federal award identification, such as the assistance listing number and title, to ensure that the federal award is used in accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effect: Failure to provide all required subaward information to subrecipients may result in noncompliance at the subrecipient level. Cause: DHS failed to include the required elements in the subaward letters sent to subrecipients. Recommendation: DHS management should modify the subaward letters sent to subrecipients to include the federal program names and assistance listing numbers so that all required award information is communicated to subrecipients at the time of subaward. Views of the Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Effective 10/13/23, DHS has been preparing FY24 funding allocation letters that will be sent to provider agencies immediately. Going forward, the funding allocation letters will go out at the beginning of the contract fiscal year. Contact Person: Landuleni Shipanga, Controller, Department of Human Services, 215-683-6366.
Children and Youth Programs Assistance Listing 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Assistance Listing 93.658 Foster Care – Title IV-E Act 148 Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Condition: For all 32 sampled Department of Human Services (DHS) subrecipients, the subaward letters sent by DHS to its subrecipients did not identify either the federal program names or the assistance listing numbers. The programs are funded through the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services. Criteria: Per the OMB’s Uniform Guidance 2 CFR section 200.332 (a)(1), the pass-through entity must ensure every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes certain required information at the time of the subaward. Required information includes the federal award identification, such as the assistance listing number and title, to ensure that the federal award is used in accordance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effect: Failure to provide all required subaward information to subrecipients may result in noncompliance at the subrecipient level. Cause: DHS failed to include the required elements in the subaward letters sent to subrecipients. Recommendation: DHS management should modify the subaward letters sent to subrecipients to include the federal program names and assistance listing numbers so that all required award information is communicated to subrecipients at the time of subaward. Views of the Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Effective 10/13/23, DHS has been preparing FY24 funding allocation letters that will be sent to provider agencies immediately. Going forward, the funding allocation letters will go out at the beginning of the contract fiscal year. Contact Person: Landuleni Shipanga, Controller, Department of Human Services, 215-683-6366.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, 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 Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient 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). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, 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 Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient 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). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, 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 Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient 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). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19—Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the DES subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring (2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs (2 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, 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 Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient 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). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $8.5 million to 9 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 6.6 percent of the Office’s $128.6 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increases the risk that the $8.5 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 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 finding 2021-101 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
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—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 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 Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—Nine State grantees paid $163.1 million to 495 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 8.6 percent of the State’s $1.9 billion total federal expenditures for this federal program, but 3 of the 5 State grantees we tested did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the federal award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the 3 State grantees identified below performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing some interim and the final financial and activity reports; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the federal award terms and program requirements. State Grantee Amount awarded Number of subrecipients Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) $113,947,556 222 Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) 13,094,509 80 Arizona Supreme Court—Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) 71,927 6 Total $127,113,992 308 Effect—The 3 State grantees’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $127.1 million of program monies they disbursed to 308 subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Despite subrecipient-monitoring requirements being included in the federal regulations, 2 State grantees did not follow its existing subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, and 2 State grantees did not develop and implement subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures to comply with these federal requirements. Specifically, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required subrecipient-monitoring procedures in its established policies and procedures. In addition, AOT management reported that it misunderstood the State guidance received, and it performed only limited monitoring procedures for subrecipients who expended more than $750,000 of AOT awards during the year. Finally, AOC management reported that there was a misunderstanding on which State grantee was responsible for performing the subrecipient-monitoring of the monies they passed through to a subrecipient and consequently did not develop all the necessary subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. Criteria—Federal regulation requires State grantees 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, the Office established subrecipient-monitoring policies and procedures, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Lastly, federal regulation requires State grantees to establish and maintain 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— 1. The Office and AOT should ensure they perform required monitoring of their subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. The Office should allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 3. AOC should develop and implement policies and procedures and perform required monitoring of their subrecipients to ensure their compliance with award terms and program requirements. Specifically, AOC should: 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any actions taken, if appropriate. 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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy.
Assistance Listings 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, 2021; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $12.3 million to 13 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 38 percent of the Office’s $32.5 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing financial and activity reports if submitted by the subrecipient; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $12.3 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its various monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the various monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Office to establish and maintain 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 finding 2021-105 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings 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, 2021; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $12.3 million to 13 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 38 percent of the Office’s $32.5 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing financial and activity reports if submitted by the subrecipient; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $12.3 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its various monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the various monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Office to establish and maintain 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 finding 2021-105 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings 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, 2021; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $12.3 million to 13 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 38 percent of the Office’s $32.5 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing financial and activity reports if submitted by the subrecipient; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $12.3 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its various monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the various monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Office to establish and maintain 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 finding 2021-105 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.
Assistance Listings 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, 2021; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Arizona Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $12.3 million to 13 subrecipients during fiscal year 2022, or 38 percent of the Office’s $32.5 million total federal expenditures for this federal program, but did not perform all the required monitoring of the subrecipients’ activities or compliance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, the Office performed some monitoring during the year, which consisted only of reviewing financial and activity reports if submitted by the subrecipient; however, those monitoring procedures alone were not sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Effect—The Office’s lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the $12.3 million of program monies the Office awarded to subrecipients may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. If monies are spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not receive all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Cause—Office management reported that it did not have enough staff to perform its various monitoring procedures, and instead, the Office performed only limited monitoring procedures. Specifically, the Office had policies and procedures to follow for performing the various monitoring procedures for its subrecipients, including how it should consider and assess risk of each subrecipient and carry out required and various other monitoring procedures based on those risk assessments. However, Office management reported that its staffing levels were not sufficient to perform all the required procedures. Criteria—Federal regulations require 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; 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 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 – e]). Further, federal regulation requires the Office to establish and maintain 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 their established policies and procedures 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, follow up on and ensure that corrective action is taken on audit findings that could potentially affect the program, and issue management decisions for audit findings pertaining to the federal award. c. Maintain documentation of monitoring procedures demonstrating they were performed, including the monitoring procedures’ results and any Office actions taken, if appropriate. 2. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements, and designate an individual to perform necessary subrecipient-monitoring procedures. 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 finding 2021-105 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2021.