Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.334, recipients and subrecipients of federal awards are required to retain all records pertinent to a federal award for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure or financial report. These records include, but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the federal award. The County is expected to retain copies of all grant agreements to ensure it can identify and comply with all applicable terms, conditions, and regulatory requirements associated with the funding. Condition: CLA observed that the County did not retain copies of the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program. Questioned costs: None noted. Context: CLA was unable to obtain the grant agreements for the Home Partnership Investment Program, and the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund Program, as the County was unable to provide copies upon request. Cause: The management was unable to retain copies of the grant agreements due to the considerable passage of time since their issuance. Effect: Due to the absence of the original grant agreements, the County may not be fully aware of, or in compliance with, all applicable grant requirements. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management establish and maintain a formal process for the retention and organization of all grant-related documentation. This process should ensure that key documents are securely stored, easily accessible, and periodically reviewed to support ongoing compliance with grant requirements. Additionally, the County should work with granting agencies to obtain copies of any missing agreements and perform a comprehensive review to identify and address any outstanding compliance requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2024-001: Department of Health and Human Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Assistance Listing #93.558; Pass Through Virginia Department of Social Services, Pass Through Entity Identifying Number BEN-21-054. Criteria: The Organization should have processes and procedures in place to keep and maintain client eligibility records, per 2 CFR 200.303 and 2 CFR 200.334. Condition: During our audit, we noted that the Organization was unable to locate records substantiating the eligibility of clients served. Context: During testing, the Organization was unable to find supporting eligibility records for 31 out of the 60 samples that received services as part of a federal program. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Cause/Effect: Internal control processes over proper maintenance of clients’ records were not operating effectively, causing documentation to not be located. Questioned Costs: Unknown. Identification of Repeat Finding: Repeat Finding 2023-003. Recommendation: We recommend procedures are implemented to ensure proper maintenance of client records. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and will implement stronger processes to ensure that records confirming the eligibility of program participants are obtained and properly maintained. All program staff will receive updated training on eligibility requirements, supporting documents to track such requirements, and supports throughout the year to ensure eligibility requirements are met and documented. Documents will also be reviewed regularly to ensure completeness against eligibility requirements. This process will be led by the Vice President of Family Empowerment and Self Sufficiency with support from operational and compliance staff.
2024-002: Department of Health and Human Services - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Federal Assistance Listing # 93.558; Pass Through Virginia Department of Social Services, Pass Through Entity Identifying Number BEN-21-054. Criteria: The Organization should have effective policies and procedures in place to ensure there is proper documentation supporting funds were used in compliance with the federal award, per 2 CFR 200.303 and 2 CFR 200.334. Condition: During our audit, it was noted that there was not an effective process in place to keep and maintain the required records to support pay-for-performance outputs and outcomes. Context: The Organization was unable to provide documentation supporting the allowability of 6 of the 60 samples selected for testing. Cause/Effect: Internal control processes over maintenance of records supporting pay-for-performance outcomes and ouputs were not operating effectively from July 2023 through June 2024. Questioned Costs: $6,800 Identification of Repeat Finding: N/A Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implements a review process to ensure that documentation is retained to support pay-for-performance outputs and outcomes submitted to the grantor. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and will implement stronger review processes to ensure proper documentation is in place to support program activities and reports submitted to the grantor. All staff charged with maintaining client documentation will receive updated training on recordkeeping requirements, supporting documents specifying such requirements, and supports throughout the year to ensure documents are properly maintained and verified. Documents will be reviewed regularly for completeness and specifically cross-checked with quarterly report and invoice information directly by program leadership prior to submission. This process will be led by the Vice President of Family Empowerment and Self Sufficiency with support from operational and compliance staff.
Finding 2024-002: Failure to Follow Recordkeeping Requirements for Expenditures (Material Weakness) Federal Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Program Name: COVID-19 - Pandemic Relief Activities: Local Food Purchase Agreements with States, Tribes, and Local Governments Assistance Listing Number: 10.182 Pass-Through Entity: State of Florida Department of Agriculture Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.334, requires recipients and subrecipients to retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial reports (quarterly or annually). Records include, but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical information. Additionally, 2 CFR Section 200.403, requires that costs must meet certain criteria to be allowable under federal awards, specifically 2 CFR Section 200.403(g), requires adequate documentation of those costs. Condition: During our testing, the Organization was unable to provide appropriate supporting documentation that evidenced a proper activity was conducted using federal funding, and further we could not determine if the costs incurred were allowable. Additionally, we noted that the Organization did not establish adequate internal controls to ensure supporting documentation was maintained to evidence that compliance was achieved. Cause: The Organizations internal controls were not effectively designed over recordkeeping of food purchases. Known Questioned Costs: $166,610 Context: The total sample size was 100 items of expense, which was determined to be a statistically valid sample. 10 out of the 100 items tested were not supported by appropriate documentation. 5 out of 100 items tested included freight costs that were included in the food costs. Freight should have been separated and classified as an administrative cost. These items resulted in the questioned costs calculated above and the noncompliance reported. The total population of expenditures charged to the federal program, from which our sample was selected, was $14,401,876. Effect: Federal funds may have been used for unallowable costs and therefore the purpose of the award may not have been met. Overall, this results in noncompliance with federal award requirements. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization evaluate its internal controls over allowable costs, recordkeeping and recording of federal expenditures and implement internal control procedures to ensure documentation is appropriately maintained for the required timeframe. Ongoing monitoring of the controls designed should be established to ensure future failures are minimized.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: COVID 19 ARPA Local Fiscal Recovery EXP Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Various Pass-Through Agency: State of Connecticut Department of Education Pass-Through Number(s): 12060-OPM20600-29669 Award Period: March 3, 2021 – December 31, 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (UG) requires allowable costs to be adequately documented and records be retained for a minimum of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report. Condition: The Town does not have adequate controls in place to ensure supporting documentation is retained for expenditures that are charged to the grant. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, it was noted that the Town could not provide documentation to support that one invoice totaling $10,975 charged to the grant was reviewed and approved as an allowable cost to the grant. Cause: The Town did not retain documentation that the expenditure was an approved cost of the grant. Effect: We noted no instances of noncompliance with the provisions of allowable costs, however, the lack of internal controls over these compliance requirements provides an opportunity for noncompliance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Town design controls to ensure all documentation is retained in accordance with the UG record retention requirements under 2 CFR 200.334. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): SY 22-23, SY 23-24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not designed nor implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs were supported by proper documentation, were allowable, and were only for the operation of the food service program. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Vendor Transactions A sample of 61 vendor transactions from the Food Service fund was selected for testing to verify the transactions were for allowable activities and costs under the Child Nutrition programs. There were 3 of the 61 transactions, totaling $3,698, that were paid to vendors for which the School Corporation could not provide documentation to support the costs. As such, the 3 transactions could not be verified as an allowable activity or cost for the food service program. In addition, 12 of the 61 vendor transactions, totaling $427, were refunds of student meal accounts that should have been paid out of the Prepaid Food fund. Of the 61 vendor transactions, there was 1 in the amount of $536 that was not related to food service. Payroll Transactions During testing, stipends totaling $1,142 were paid to 4 employees with no documentation to show support or approval of the stipend amount. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in both the food service personnel and the School Corporation's administrative office, an effective system of internal controls was not established that would have ensured compliance, or that would have ensured supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect Without a proper system in place, noncompliance remained undetected, resulting in grant expenditures being spent for unallowable costs and without the proper supporting documentation. Noncompliance with grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Cost/Costs Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs We identified $5,803 in known questioned costs as noted above in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure that expenditures made from federal awards are allowable per the terms and conditions of the federal award as well as the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement and that adequate supporting documentation is retained. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-006 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-045-PN01, 22611-045-PN01, 22611-045-ARP, 21619-045-PN01, 22619-045-PN01, 22619-045-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-006. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. A sample of 60 expenditures made from the School Corporation's Special Education funds during the audit period was selected for testing. Of the sample of 60, there were 47 transactions that were fringe benefit claims for which there was no detail to identify the employees included in the payment amount. In addition, documentation and contracts were not provided for another 6 transactions. As a result, 53 expenditures, totaling $32,097, could not be verified as allowable activities or costs for the Special Education program. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 34 CFR 300.202(a) states: "General. Amounts provided to the LEA under Part B of the Act— (1) Must be expended in accordance with the applicable provisions of this part; (2) Must be used only to pay the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities, consistent with paragraph (b) of this section; and (3) Must be used to supplement State, local, and other Federal funds and not to supplant those funds." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 34 CFR 300.208 states: "(a) Uses. Notwithstanding §§ 300.202, 300.203(b), and 300.162(b), funds provided to an LEA under Part B of the Act may be used for the following activities: (1) Services and aids that also benefit nondisabled children. For the costs of special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services, provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to a child with a disability in accordance with the IEP of the child, even if one or more nondisabled children benefit from these services. (2) Early intervening services. To develop and implement coordinated, early intervening educational services in accordance with § 300.226. (3) High cost special education and related services. To establish and implement cost or risk sharing funds, consortia, or cooperatives for the LEA itself, or for LEAs working in a consortium of which the LEA is a part, to pay for high cost special education and related services. (b) Administrative case management. An LEA may use funds received under Part B of the Act to purchase appropriate technology for recordkeeping, data collection, and related case management activities of teachers and related services personnel providing services described in the IEP of children with disabilities, that is needed for the implementation of those case management activities." 34 CFR 300.800 states: "The Secretary provides grants under section 619 of the Act to assist States to provide special education and related services in accordance with Part B of the Act— (a) To children with disabilities aged three through five years; and (b) At a State's discretion, to two-year-old children with disabilities who will turn three during the school year." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Due to turnover of staffing in both the Special Education personnel and the School Corporation's administrative office, an effective system of internal controls was not established that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, the School Corporation did not retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation. This prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs We identified $32,097 in known questioned costs as noted above in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation to support all grant expenditures will be maintained and made available for audit as related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-007 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Cash Management Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-045-PN01, 22611-045-PN01, 22611-045-ARP, 21619-045-PN01, 22619-045-PN01, 22619-045-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Cash Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-007. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 29 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The system of internal controls over the applicable reports, as established by the School Corporation, was not properly implemented, nor was it operating effectively to ensure that sufficient audit evidence was maintained to support the requests for reimbursement. The School Corporation submitted six reimbursement requests to the Indiana Department of Education during the audit period. The School Corporation was unable to provide documentation to support the underlying data accumulated and summarized in each of the reimbursement requests. The reported data could not be traced to the records that accumulate or summarize the data; therefore, we were unable to verify the accuracy and completeness of the reimbursement requests. As a result, we were unable to verify that program funds were expended prior to requesting reimbursement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.305(b)(3) states in part: "Reimbursement is the preferred method when the requirements in paragraph (b) cannot be met, when the Federal awarding agency sets a specific condition per § 200.208, or when the non-Federal entity requests payment by reimbursement. . . ." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in both the Special Education personnel and the School Corporation's administrative office, the School Corporation's management had not developed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, as it related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 30 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, the School Corporation did not retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation to support the reimbursement requests. This prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation for the reimbursement requests will be maintained and made available for audit as related to the grant agreement and the Cash Management compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-011 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-010. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. A sample of 60 transactions charged to the Title I grant during the audit period was selected for testing. The following errors were noted: • A total of 29 transactions, totaling $13,621, were fringe benefit claims; however, the supporting documentation provided did not include details to identify the employees for which the benefit was paid. As a result, we were unable to determine if the payments were on behalf of allowable staff related to the Title I program. • The School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation for 2 transactions totaling $551. As such, these transactions were unable to be verified as allowable activities or costs for the Title I program. The errors noted above were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 39 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non- Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in the School Corporation's administrative office, the School Corporation's management had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 40 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, the School Corporation did not retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation. This prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs We identified $14,172 in known questioned costs as noted above in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation will be maintained and made available for audit as related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-013 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Eligibility Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-013. Condition and Context The School Corporation submits the October Real Time report each year to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). This data is used to report the School Corporation's enrollment and poverty (socioeconomic) status of the students enrolled in each school. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure a proper review and approval of the October Real Time report took place before submission to the IDOE. Enrollment and poverty numbers for any nonpublic schools are manually entered into the Title I Application by the School. Summary data of nonpublic enrollment and poverty status was provided to the School Corporation by the participating nonpublic school. The enrollment counts and the poverty counts included in the summary data should have been supported by nonpublic school records, such as a list of students and their poverty status. The School Corporation did not retain the supporting documentation for the audit period for the nonpublic schools. The lack of internal controls and lack of supporting documentation was systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 45 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated 'Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 34 CFR 200.78(a)(1) states: "After reserving funds, as applicable, under § 200.77, including funds for equitable services for private school students, their teachers, and their families, an LEA must allocate funds under this subpart to school attendance areas and schools, identified as eligible and selected to participate under section 1113(a) or (b) of the ESEA, in rank order on the basis of the total number of public school children from low-income families in each area or school." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in the School Corporation's administrative office, the School Corporation's management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the Eligibility compliance requirement. Effect The School Corporation did not establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation for the audit period which enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Eligibility compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, real time reports and nonpublic school enrollment documentation were not maintained for audit, and, as such, the Indiana State Board of Accounts could not determine if the School Corporation complied with the Eligibility compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 46 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-014 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-014. Condition and Context The system of internal controls over the applicable reports, as established by the School Corporation, was not properly implemented nor was it operating effectively to ensure that sufficient audit evidence was maintained to support the requests for reimbursement, as well as the Final Expenditure Reports submitted by the School Corporation. The Title I Director approved the requests for reimbursement and the Final Expenditure Reports prior to submission; however, this review was not effective. The fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 Final Expenditure Reports and the six reimbursement requests were selected for testing. The School Corporation was unable to provide for audit documentation to support the underlying data accumulated and summarized in each of the Financial Expenditure Reports or the six reimbursement requests. The reported data could not be traced to records that accumulate or summarize the data; therefore, the accuracy and completeness of the reports could not be verified. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 47 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. . . ." 34 CFR 76.722 states: "A State may require a subgrantee to submit reports in a manner and format that assists the State in complying with the requirements under 34 CFR 76.720 and in carrying out other responsibilities under the program." Cause Due to turnover of staffing in the School Corporation's administrative office, the School Corporation's management had not designed nor implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and available for audit related to the Reporting compliance requirement. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, the School Corporation did not retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation. This prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the Reporting compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure documentation will be maintained and made available for audit as related to the grant agreement and the Reporting compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-015 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-018. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Vendor Disbursements Per inquiry with the School Corporation, one employee prepares the reimbursement requests, and another employee reviews the requests to ensure all costs are correct and allowable before giving their approval. A total of 60 claims were sampled for audit. Of the 30 vendor claims tested, there were 3 claims, totaling $2,563, that had no supporting documentation provided to determine if they were an allowable cost nor did they provide support of review and approval of the expenditure. Payroll Disbursements The School Corporation had established internal controls that all payroll is approved by the Treasurer and the School Board. However, during the audit, the School Corporation was unable to provide supporting documentation to show where the governing board approved the rate or pay or stipend amount for 2 of the payrolls selected for testing of $341 in order to determine if the costs were allowable. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 49 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." Cause Due to turnover in staff, supporting documentation could not be located to support for some expenditures paid from the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund during the audit period. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls could have enabled noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Questioned Costs We identified $2,904 in known questioned costs as noted above in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure supporting documentation is maintained and available for audit to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Criteria - Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.334(a) states that The records must be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken if any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period.Condition – Personnel records were not properly retained. Effect – Key controls were missing personnel data records. Cause – Closing of HVRP federal program Recommendation – Management should prepare a quality control assessment to ensure data retention of personnel records is properly retained in line with Uniform guidance requirements.
2024-008 Federal Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Names: The Child Nutrition Cluster: National School Lunch Program Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.555 10.559 Pass-Through Agency: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education Pass-Through Number: 359-46-477-8 Award Period: July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Uniform Guidance requires recipients to submit accurate, complete, and timely financial and performance reports for federal awards (2 CFR 200.327 and 200.328). Program specific reporting instructions for the Child Nutrition Cluster require the FNS 10 and FNS 418 to be filed within 30 days after month end. Condition: As part of the reporting requirements for the CBS Food Program under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), management is responsible for submitting the FNS 10 (NSLP) and FNS 418 (SFSP) reports within 30 days after month-end. However, management was unable to provide five (5) monthly NSLP reports and one (1) monthly SFSP report requested for audit testing. Questioned Costs: None Cause: Management did not maintain adequate internal controls to ensure that required monthly program reports were properly completed, retained, and available for audit. This may include weaknesses in recordkeeping processes, staff turnover, or insufficient monitoring of reporting deadlines. Effect: Failure to maintain and provide required federal reports results in noncompliance with federal reporting requirements. Because key source documents were unavailable, auditors were unable to verify the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of reported program activity for those months. This increases the risk of misreporting or unsupported claims being submitted to the federal government. Recommendation: The Organization should establish and enforce strengthened internal controls over federal reporting to ensure that all required monthly reports (FNS 10 and FNS 418) are: (a) completed accurately, (b) submitted on time, and (c) retained in accordance with federal record retention requirements (2 CFR 200.334). Management should designate responsible personnel and implement a monitoring process to ensure compliance. Views of Responsible Officers and Corrective Action Plan: Please refer to Community Benefit Solutions dba CBS Food Program’s Corrective Action Plan
Finding 2024-006 – Compliance; Internal Control over Compliance, Reporting (Material Weakness) Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Program Name: Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 66.460 Pass-Through Entity: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Program Name: Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Program Assistance Listing Numbers: 11.438, 15.015, 15.244 Pass-Through Entity: State of Oregon – Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Name: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.665 Pass-Through Entity: U.S. Forest Service Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of AgricultureFederal Program Name: Natural Resources Conservation Service Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.905 Pass-Through Entity: U.S. Forest Service Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Program Name: Wildlife, Sport Fish and Restoration Program Assistance Listing Numbers: 15.244 Pass-Through Entity: Bureau of Land Management Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Program Name: Secure Rural Schools and community Self-Determination – Watershed and water-quality improvements Assistance Listing Numbers: 15.234 Pass-Through Entity: Bureau of Land Management Criteria: Under 2 CFR 200, recipients must submit performance and financial reports as required by the terms and conditions of the award and must retain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance (see (§200.301Monitoring and reporting program performance, and §200.328 Financial reporting, §200.329 Monitoring and reporting program performance, and §200.334 Retention requirements for records). The grant agreements for awards above require timely submission of performance / progress reports by specified due dates, with documentation maintained to support the submitted information. Condition: For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, the auditee could not provide sufficient evidence that required reports for the programs listed were prepared, reviewed, and submitted in accordance with grant terms. Specifically: No provided required financial reports, and Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers lacked copies or evidence of submission, and support for reported amounts requested. Auditors were not provided with performance/progress reports and were instructed that Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers had no retained copies, review sign-offs, or submission confirmation. Where payments were received, support for the required reports or metrics were not retained and could not be supplied to auditors for reconciling to underlying records. Cause: Management has not implemented formal reporting controls, including: A documented reporting calendar with due dates and responsible staff, Reconciliation of report amounts to the accounting records, Retention procedures for report copies, underlying support, and submission confirmations, and Supervisory review evidenced by signatures or workflow approvals. Effect or Potential Effect: Absent evidence of timely, accurate reporting and adequate record retention: The organization is at risk of noncompliance with federal award conditions, Inaccurate financial or performance information may be reported to the funding agency, and The entity may be subject to remedial actions, including heightened monitoring, repayment of questioned amounts, or potential suspension of funding. Questioned Cost: None directly noted, but potential risk if reports were incomplete or inaccurate.Context: During our audit, it was found that the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers experienced complete staff turnover in Financial Management for the year being audited. No current finance employees had worked for the organization during the year being audited. Award files provided to auditors did not contain information related to reporting of activity, expenditures, or progress of the awards. Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No, Prior- year did not require a Single Audit. Recommendation: We recommend that Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers: Establish a formal reporting and retention policy aligned with 2 CFR 200 and grant terms. Implement a centralized reporting calendar that tracks due dates, preparers, reviewers, and submission methods. Require reconciliations of financial reports to the general ledger and supporting schedules, retain the reconciliation with the reporting package. Create standard workpapers for performance metrics for each award. Configure the grant portal or document management system to retain submission confirmations, reports, receipts, and version -controlled copies of all reports for awards. Document supervisory review through sign-offs prior to submission and with evidence retained. Provide training to staff on Uniform Guidance requirements and record retention (§200.334). District Response: Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers acknowledges the deficiencies. Corrective Action Plan: ____________ (To be completed by Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers) Planned Implementation Date: _____________ Responsible Person: Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Finance Manager
Finding 2024-007: Document Retention – Material Weakness Information on the federal program: Federal program is American Rescue Plan Act - Violence Prevention and Reduction Grant Portfolio from the U.S. Department of Treasury passed through the Justice Advisory Council. Criteria: Under 2 CFR 200.334, non-federal entities must retain financial and programmatic records, supporting documentation, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to a federal award for the required retention period. Records must be maintained in a manner that allows them to be readily accessible for audit and monitoring purposes. Effective internal controls include maintaining complete, organized, and retrievable documentation to support financial reporting and compliance. Condition: The Organization does not have an effective document retention process or internal controls to ensure that key financial records are consistently preserved, organized, and readily retrievable. Supporting documentation such as invoices, contracts, reconciliations, journal entry support, and grant documentation was frequently incomplete, missing, or delayed in being provided. These gaps resulted in incomplete audit trails and limited management’s ability to demonstrate the completeness, accuracy, and validity of financial information. Cause: The Organization has not designed, implemented, or maintained adequate document retention procedures, nor assigned responsibility to ensure consistent storage, organization, and retrieval of supporting financial documentation. Effect: Without complete and accessible supporting documentation, the Organization cannot substantiate recorded amounts, validate the occurrence or completeness of transactions, or demonstrate the functioning of key internal controls. This increases the risk that material misstatements in the financial statements or noncompliance with federal requirements may not be prevented or detected in a timely manner. Questioned Costs: None. Context: During the audit, we requested various supporting documents needed to verify financial transactions, account balances, and management representations for the period under audit. In multiple instances, the Organization was unable to locate or provide the requested documentation in a timely manner. These difficulties occurred across several financial areas, including invoices, reconciliations, journal entry support, grant-related documentation, and valuation records, indicating that document retention challenges were pervasive rather than isolated to one type of record. Identification as a Repeat Finding: 2023-008 Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a comprehensive document retention and recordkeeping policy that establishes standardized retention requirements for all key financial documentation, including invoices, contracts, reconciliations, journal entries, and grant support. Management should develop procedures for centralized and secure storage, either physical or electronic, to ensure records are properly preserved and readily accessible. Additionally, periodic monitoring should be performed to confirm compliance with retention procedures, and staff should receive training to reinforce expectations regarding documentation maintenance and timely retrieval. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Subsequent to this grant commencing, the Organization hired a new grant and partnership specialist. This specialist attaches all relevant support for expenditure to the internal monthly grant reporting and ensures that all expenditures are fully supported by appropriate detail. This detail is on a shared drive with finance and is reviewed by the vice president of finance.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Pass-through Agency: Northampton County Pass-Through Number: N/A Award Period: May 18, 2022 - December 31, 2025; October 1, 2022 - December 31, 2025 May 18, 2023 - December 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria: Uniform Guidance requires recipients to prepare, submit, and retain accurate, complete, and timely financial reports for federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR §§ 200.327 and 200.328. Additionally, federal record retention requirements (2 CFR § 200.334) require organizations to maintain supporting documentation sufficient to substantiate reported program activity. Condition: During audit testing of financial reporting for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, the Organization was unable to locate three of ten financial reports requested for review. As a result, auditors were unable to verify the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the reported financial information for those reporting periods. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Ten reports were requested for audit testing and management was unable to provide three of the requested reports. Cause: The Organization experienced turnover within the finance department, which contributed to inadequate document retention and weaknesses in controls over the preparation and maintenance of required financial reports. Effect: Failure to maintain and provide required financial reports constitutes noncompliance with federal reporting and record retention requirements. The absence of key source documentation limits assurance that reported program activity is accurate and supported and increases the risk of misreporting or unsupported claims being submitted to the federal government. Repeat Finding: N/A: Not a repeat finding Recommendation: The Organization should strengthen internal controls over financial reporting and record retention by establishing clear procedures to ensure that all required reports are accurately prepared, timely submitted, and retained in accordance with federal requirements. Management should designate responsible personnel and implement monitoring procedures to verify compliance with reporting and documentation standards. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Please refer to Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley, Inc. and Subsidiaries’ Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2024-006 – Purchases and disbursement cycle Federal Program ALN 93.498 Provider Relief Fund - CARES Act Name of Federal Agency U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Category Non-compliance / Material Weakness in internal controls over compliance Compliance Requirement Activities Allowed/Cost Principl Criteria The Purchasing Procedures Manual or “Reglamento de compras” of the Corporation, in its articles 14 “Inicio de las gestiones de compra” and 15 “Subastas informales”, establishes the parameters and process to begin a purchase, that includes the issuance of a purchase requisition as well as of the requirement of a quotation for determined purchases. In addition, 2 CFR §200.302 – Financial Management, states that management must maintain records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. Also, 2 CFR §200.334 – Retention Requirements for Records, states that the recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. Records to be retained include but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Finally, 2 CFR §200.303 – Internal Controls state that the recipient and subrecipient must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient or subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition During testing of internal control procedures over purchases and cash disbursements of Provider Relief Funds, we examined processed invoices and payments that lacked properly approved purchase requisitions and quotations. The documents could not be located by management and thus, were not made available for examination. Cause This deficiency is the result of lack of knowledge from the employees and overall absence of implementation, monitoring and proper compliance with internal controls of the Corporation’s procedures. Effect The Corporation did not comply with its purchasing procedures manual. This condition increases the risk of improper or fraudulent purchases, the selection of higher-cost vendors, and other procurement irregularities. Because these transactions were funded with federal awards, this condition also increases the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and the potential for questioned costs. Questioned cost None. Context During the audit of substantive tests of compliance related to Provider Relief Fund disbursements, from a sample of twenty-five (25) disbursements, we examined twenty-five (25) invoices, in which, six (6) of them lacked an approved requisition, and proper documentation of quotations. Identification of a repeat finding A similar condition was found in the previous audit on Finding 2023-003 which was an Internal Control over Financial Reporting finding. Recommendation We recommend that the Corporation strengthen its internal controls over the purchasing and disbursement processes to ensure compliance with its established policies and procedures. Specifically, all supporting documentation for purchases and cash disbursements should be reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with procurement requirements prior to the approval and signing of checks. Any exceptions or unusual items should be resolved and documented before payment is processed. In addition, management should implement supervisory review and monitoring procedures to ensure that procurement activities are performed in accordance with the Corporation’s policies and applicable federal requirements. All supporting documentation should be properly maintained to support transactions and facilitate audit and internal review purposes. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions The Corporation’s management and responsible officers agree with this finding. Please refer to the corrective action plan section for the Corporation’s response on pages 85 to 90.
Finding No. 2024-007 – Provider Relief Fund Reporting Federal Program ALN 93.498 Provider Relief Fund - CARES Act Name of Federal Agency U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria According to the guidelines governing the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), recipients who received one or more PRF and or American Rescue Plan payments exceeding $10,000, in the aggregate, during a Payment Received Period are required to report in each applicable Reporting Period as outlined in a timetable provided by the Health Resources & Services Administration. The table below is applicable to the funds received by the Corporation: Period Payment Received Period (Payments Exceeding $10,000 in Aggregate Received Period of Availability for Eligible Expenses Period of Availability for Lost Revenues PRF and ARP Rural Portal Reporting Time Period Period 5 January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022 January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023 January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023 July 1, 2023 to September 30, 2023 In addition, CFR 200.334 states that the recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. For awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, the recipient and subrecipient must retain records for three years from the date of submission of their quarterly or annual financial report, respectively. Records to be retained include but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Condition The Corporation could not provide evidence that reporting for Period 5 was made within the reporting time period due lack of access to the HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) portal. Category Non-compliance / Significant Deficiency in internal controls over compliance. Compliance Requirement Reporting Cause The Corporation did not maintain records that the PRF Portal report was made within the required reporting time period. Currently, management cannot access the portal where the report was submitted and therefore, there is no evidence that the report was submitted in a timely matter. Effect As a result of this condition, the grantor may issue warnings and/or impose penalties to the Corporation. Questioned cost None. Context The Corporation was required to submit the Period 5 report by September 30, 2023. Management provided the report but was not able to provide evidence that submission was made on time. Identification of a repeat finding This is not a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit. Recommendation Management should strengthen its internal controls over the administration and compliance monitoring of federal awards to ensure that all reporting and compliance requirements are met in accordance with program regulations. Specifically, the Corporation should establish formal procedures to track federal reporting deadlines, assign clear responsibility for the preparation and submission of required reports, and ensure continuity of access to federal reporting systems in the event of changes in management or personnel. Management should also implement supervisory review procedures to confirm that required reports are submitted timely and retain appropriate documentation supporting compliance with federal reporting requirements. Additionally, the Corporation should establish and enforce policies requiring that all records related to federal awards be maintained for at least three years after the closeout of the award, in accordance with federal regulations. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions The Corporation’s management and responsible officers agree with this finding. Please refer to the corrective action plan section for the Corporation’s response on pages 85 to 90.
The Department of Economic Security could not support information reported to the federal agency and we were unable to determine whether the expenditures were appropriate Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 21.023 COVID-19 – Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award number(s) and year(s): ERA2-0165 May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement(s): Reporting Questioned costs: Not applicable Condition Contrary to federal regulations and guidance, for information it reported to the federal agency for its Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) 2 award, the Department of Economic Security—Child and Community Services Division (Division) did not retain documentation to support information reported to the federal agency.1 Specifically, for the 2 quarterly reports we selected for test work, we found that the Division did not retain documentation, such as system reports, queries, or screenshots, to support the performance reporting information it reported in its 2 reports as required.2,3 Specifically, we found that the Division did not retain any support for the ERAP 2 quarter 4 compliance report (December 2023) and had only partial support for the ERAP 2 quarter 1 compliance report (March 2024) submitted to the grantor. Effect The Division’s failure to retain associated documentation for audit purposes resulted in us being unable to determine whether the reports were complete and accurate. Also, it results in the federal agency being unable to rely on the reports to monitor the Division’s program administration, including its compliance with program requirements and ability to prevent and detect fraud, and to evaluate the program’s success. 1 The ERAP was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). 2 The U.S. Department of the Treasury published reporting guidance for the required monthly, quarterly, final reporting, and closeout reports (U.S. Department of the Treasury. [2022]. Reporting Guidance—Emergency Rental Assistance Program, Version 3.4. Monthly, Quarterly, and Final Reporting. Retrieved 10/17/2025 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/ERA-Reporting-Guidance-v2.pdf). 3 On October 6, 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury published ERAP 2 Treasury Portal User Guide, which included a recommendation for ERAP recipients to take screenshots of portal screens as the downloadable PDF documents display only key components of the overall report (U.S. Department of the Treasury. [2025]. Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA2) Treasury Portal User Guide, Version 4.0. Retrieved 10/17/2025 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/ERA2-Portal-Users-Guide.pdf). Cause The Division did not follow its policies and procedures to retain documentation to support the information it included in its 2 reports. Criteria For quarterly financial and compliance reports, federal guidance requires the Division to report information, such as the administrative cost ratio, housing stability services ratio, and system for prioritizing assistance so that the federal agency can monitor performance and compliance. Further, the Division’s policies and procedures require the Division to retain all records relating to a federal award for a period of at least 5 years after all funds allocated to the State have been expended, which generally exceeds the federal regulation requirement to retain all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date of its submission of the final expenditure report (2 CFR §200.334). Lastly, 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 to the Division 1. Prepare and retain detailed documentation, such as system reports, queries, or screenshots, to support the program information it reports to the federal agency. 2. Follow its policies and procedures to retain all records relating to a federal award for a period of 5 years after all funds are expended. This finding is similar to prior-year finding 2023-107 and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. Views of responsible officials State management concurs with this finding. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials regarding these recommendations. 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.
The Department of Emergency and Military Affairs’ Emergency Management Division did not always retain documentation supporting payroll, increasing the risk that $103,045 may not have been spent in accordance with award terms and conditions Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grants Award number(s) and year(s): EMF-2021-EP-0016-S01 October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023 EMF-2021-EP-0018-S01 October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025 EMF-2022-EP-0009-S01 October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2025 EMF-2023-EP-0008-S01 October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Compliance requirement(s): Activities Allowed or Unallowed/Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned costs: $103,045 Condition Contrary to federal regulations and its policy, the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs’ Emergency Management Division (Division) did not always retain documentation supporting the payroll costs it charged to the program. Specifically, the Division did not retain personnel action forms supporting and approving employees’ pay rates and/or authorization to work on the program for 5 of 40 employees we tested totaling $103,045, as follows: X $95,080 for 2 employees’ annual payroll costs lacked supported pay rates and authorization to work on the program. These employees transferred to other State agencies after the fiscal year ended, and contrary to Division policy and federal regulation, the Division did not retain their personnel records. X $7,965 for 3 employees annual payroll costs lacked supported pay rates. Previous personnel action forms authorized these 3 employees to work on the program. Effect The Division’s failure to retain documentation supporting payroll costs increased the risk that $103,045 may not have been spent in accordance with award terms and conditions. Consequently, the Division may be required to return monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 The Division’s $1.7 million overall program payroll costs paid to 76 employees, or 23% of $7.3 million total program costs during fiscal year 2024, are at an increased risk of not being spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Finally, the Division is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause The Division’s Administrative Services Office (Office) was not trained on or aware of Division policy requirements to prepare personnel action forms authorizing all employee pay rate changes and program assignments and to retain the records of employees who subsequently transferred to another State agency. Criteria Federal regulation requires the Division to maintain records for salaries and wages charged to federal awards that accurately reflect the work performed to ensure they are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated (2 CFR §200.430 [g][1][i]) and retain these records for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or passthrough grantor (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs’ policy requires the Division to prepare and retain for 5 years after an employee’s termination all the employee’s employment records, including personnel action forms authorizing employee pay rate changes and program assignments. It also requires the Division to retain necessary personnel records of employees who transfer to another State agency for no less than 5 years.2 Further, 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). 1 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Division, 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 State of Arizona, Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. (2007). DEMA Directive 20.1: State Human Resources Administration, Sections 1.3: The Official Personnel File, 1.5: Employees Transferring to Another State Agency. Recommendations to the Division 1. Retain documentation for all payroll costs, including personnel action forms, to demonstrate employees’ salaries and wages are authorized to be charged to the federal program and spent in accordance with the program’s award terms and conditions. 2. Review the fiscal year 2024 payroll costs for the program to ensure they were properly supported and spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions and coordinate with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as necessary, to adjust future federal reimbursement requests or repay any unallowable costs the Division charged to the program. 3. Implement its written policy and train employees to prepare and retain for no less than 5 years the personnel action forms authorizing all employee pay rate changes and program assignments, including those who transfer to another state agency. Views of responsible officials State management concurs with this finding. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials regarding these recommendations. 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.
The Department of Emergency and Military Affairs’ Emergency Management Division (Division) did not retain adequate documentation supporting reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports, risking the Division receiving monies it was not entitled to Assistance Listings number(s) and name(s): 97.042 Emergency Management Performance Grants Award number(s) and year(s): EMF-2021-EP-0016-S01 October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2023 EMF-2021-EP-0018-S01 October 1, 2020 through June 30, 2025 EMF-2022-EP-0009-S01 October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2025 EMF-2023-EP-0008-S01 October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Compliance requirement(s): Cash management, matching, and reporting Questioned costs: Unknown Condition Contrary to federal regulations, the Division did not retain adequate documentation supporting reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports as follows: X Cash management For 4 of 5 requests for reimbursement we tested, the Division did not retain adequate documentation to support the amounts requested for reimbursement from the federal agency. The Division used documentation provided by its subrecipients to calculate the amount to both reimburse the subrecipient and request from the federal government. However, while the Division provided documentation of the invoices paid under their requests for reimbursement, they were unable to indicate which invoice applied to the respective request for reimbursement. X Matching The Division was unable to demonstrate through its reimbursement requests or other supporting documentation how it used nonfederal funds for at least 50% of the total project cost. X Reporting The Division did not retain documentation supporting 3 of 3 Federal Financial Reports (FFR) we tested, as follows: y For the 2023 quarter 4 FFR, the Division could only provide an unapproved draft copy and could not demonstrate that it submitted the FFR to the federal agency. y For the 2024 quarter 1 FFR and the annual FFR, the Division did not retain underlying general ledger data or other records to support costs reported, including indirect costs calculated from an approved indirect cost rate agreement. Effect The Division’s failure to retain adequate documentation supporting reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports resulted in our being unable to determine whether the reimbursements were appropriate, matching requirements were met, and the reports were complete and accurate. There is also an increased risk that Division could receive federal monies to which it is not entitled. Also, if matching requirements are not met, the Division may be required to return program monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.1 Further, the federal agency is unable to rely on the financial reports to monitor the Division’s program administration, including its compliance with program requirements and ability to prevent and detect fraud, and evaluate the program’s success. Finally, the Division is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause The Division reported that turnover of staff who previously prepared documentation to support reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports and submitted the reimbursement requests and financial reports resulted in the Division’s inability to locate the supporting documentation for the reports, including the applicable indirect cost agreement, or explain how to reconcile a large number of invoices that were provided to the reimbursement requests tested. The Division also did not have formal policies and procedures requiring an independent review to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included in the reports, and the retention of all documentation supporting data included in its reports. Consequently, only 2 of the 3 reports we tested were reviewed and approved prior to submitting the reports to the federal agency. 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). Criteria Federal regulation requires the Division to retain all public records, including financial records and supporting documentation, related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, federal regulation requires the Division to submit its quarterly reports no later than 30 days after the reporting period (2 CFR §200.328). Federal regulation also requires the Division to use the reimbursement method to administer the program, whereby the Division is reimbursed with federal program monies only after it spends its own monies for authorized program purposes and requests reimbursement from the federal grantor (2 CFR §200.305[B][3]). Also, the program’s grant agreement requires the Division to match 50% of the approved project costs from nonfederal sources. 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 to the Division 1. Retain documentation for all reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports, such as the underlying general ledger data, approved indirect cost rate agreements, or information provided by its subrecipients for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report is submitted to the federal agency. 2. Review the reports identified above to ensure they were accurate. If any inaccuracies are identified, work with the federal grantor to correct these reports. 3. Develop and implement written policies and procedures over the preparation of reimbursement requests and financial reports, and the monitoring of the Division’s matching requirements as well as the retention of these records. The Division should train responsible staff on these policies and to perform an independent review of these documents to ensure accuracy and completeness prior to submission to the federal agency. 4. Allocate sufficient resources, such as staffing, to comply with the award terms and program requirements over reimbursement requests, matching requirements, and financial reports. Views of responsible officials State management concurs with this finding. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials regarding these recommendations. 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.
2024-015 Inability to Test Compliance and Adequacy of Federal Grant Expenditures (Material Weakness) Federal Agency: All Pass-through Agency: New Hampshire Department of Education Cluster/Program: All Assistance Listing Numbers: All Compliance Requirement: All Type of Finding: Internal Control over Compliance – Material Weakness Noncompliance could not be determined due to the scope limitation Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3), Financial Management, recipients of federal funds must maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest, and must be supported by source documentation. In addition, per 2 CFR 200.303, Internal Controls, recipients must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards to ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Lastly, per 2 CFR 200.334, Record Retention Requirements, recipients of federal funds must retain financial and programmatic records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to a federal award for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report. Condition: The School District informed the audit engagement team that it was unable to locate all required documentation necessary to support expenditures and demonstrate compliance with federal program requirements. As a result, we were unable to test compliance with Federal program requirements, and expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) could not be fully supported or reconciled to the School District’s financial records. This limitation prevented us from completing the required testing over major programs. In addition, while the audit engagement team was able to trace reported federal revenue amounts to records maintained by the New Hampshire Department of Education, the School District was unable to provide sufficient supporting documentation to verify expenditures at the individual grant level. Furthermore, the School District’s grants fund was adjusted, or “plugged,” in total so that aggregate revenues agreed to aggregate expenditures; however, detailed balances were not maintained or reconciled by individual federal award. As a result, the School District could not demonstrate that revenues and expenditures were accurately recorded and matched to the specific grants from which they originated. Cause: The School District lacks a consistent, centralized process for retaining and organizing documentation related to federal program expenditures and compliance requirements. In addition, accounting records were not maintained at a sufficient level of detail to track activity by individual grant award. High staff turnover and the absence of clear written procedures contributed to the unavailability of records and the use of unsupported year-end adjustments to reconcile grant activity. Effect: Because required supporting documentation was unavailable, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support compliance with federal requirements for the affected programs. Consequently, we were unable to determine whether certain transactions were allowable, properly allocated, and in compliance with the applicable grant requirements. Additionally, the inability to reconcile grant revenues and expenditures at the individual award level increases the risk of inaccurate reporting, improper use of restricted funds, missed reimbursement opportunities, and noncompliance with grant terms and conditions. This represents material noncompliance and may result in questioned costs, repayment obligations, or other remedial actions by the granting agencies. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine. We cannot quantify questioned costs because no testing could be performed, and the scope limitation affects all reported federal expenditures. Identification as Repeat Finding: As identified in Schedule III, Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings, this is a repeat of finding 2023-001. Recommendation: We recommend that the School District establish and enforce stronger internal controls over Federal grants management and document retention. This should include implementing a centralized digital storage system, maintaining separate accounting records for each individual grant award, performing periodic reconciliations of revenues and expenditures by grant, and eliminating unsupported balancing entries used to force aggregate funds into agreement. In addition, the School District should provide regular staff training on federal documentation requirements and adopt written policies and procedures that clearly assign responsibility for grant accounting, reconciliation, and record retention. These steps will help ensure that all required documentation is consistently maintained, grant activity is accurately reported, and records are readily accessible for audit and monitoring purposes. Views of Responsible Officials: Management’s views and corrective action plan are included at the end of this report.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-022 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-003) FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 10.542) PANDEMIC EBT FOOD BENEFITS (P-EBT) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AWARD NUMBERS 2301PR456S9032 (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2022 through 3/31/2024) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ACTIVITIES ALLOWED OR UNALLOWED // ELIGIBILITY // REPORTING TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 §200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: “(a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (See § 200.450). (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number, year the Federal award was issued, and name of the Federal agency or pass-through entity. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. When a Federal agency or pass-through entity requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient or subrecipient that maintains its records other than on an accrual basis, the recipient or subrecipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient or subrecipient may develop accrual data for its reports based on an analysis of the documentation on hand. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. In accordance with the approved State Plan, no summer 2023 P-EBT benefits may be issued to children who did not attend an NSLP-participating school at the end of the school year immediately preceding the summer. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our internal control procedures for the financial management system regarding reporting requirements, we found the following deficiencies regarding the only report submitted during the fiscal year of September 30, 2023: • The amount reported as total Federal share of outlays (line 10.g.), was $35,356,789, and the amount of $879,121 (line 10.h) as total unliquidated obligations. The accounting system (PRIFA) reported total expenditures in the amount of $36,235,910, which is the sum of lines 10.g and 10.h. No unliquidated obligations are included in the database of PRIFA. • In addition, we noted an expenditure dated October 31, 2023, in the database for $92,157 that was not reported. This amount was not included as unliquidated obligation in the report of September and no other report was submitted that included this expenditure. • We have no administrative expenses recorded in the database; however, the reports provided listed $307,733 as administrative expenses. In relation to the allowable activities, we obtained a list of all participants that received the benefits. We noted that the information provided from SAIC system does not agree with the reports provided by Service EBT Provider. We noted that the lists of emissions from June 2023 through October 2023 totalized $36,181,839, in accordance with a list from SAIC. Emissions from the Service EBT Provider and accounting records presented expenditures in the amount of $36,328,067, a total difference of $146,228. This difference represents 1,052 participants that are not in the list provided from SAIC, but whose benefits were issued according to the reports from the Service EBT Provider. In relation to the evaluation of the eligibility requirements, we noted that 27 participants were duplicated in the lists from SAIC. In addition, we were unable to verify if the participant attended a private school that participated in the NSLP, because no evidence of the lists from the Puerto Rico Department of Education was provided. QUESTIONED COSTS $146,228. This amount is the total amount of benefits issued for 1,052 participants whose information was not provided. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION These deficiencies are a systemic problem that is related to lack of proper training and segregation of duties when reporting (preparer and reviewer not being the same person). No proper internal controls are in place to ensure that all data used to issue the benefits is safeguarded and properly reconciled with accounting records. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF did not establish and implement adequate internal controls to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and supervisory review of financial information used in the preparation of Federal reports. In addition, financial data reported to the Federal agency was not consistently reconciled to the supporting accounting records and database prior to submission. Furthermore, no proper records are maintained of the data used to issue the benefits and how the reconciliation process from the SAIC system and benefits processed by the Service EBT Provider is made. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT The discrepancies between reported amounts and supporting records, along with lack of supervisory review, create a risk that Federal reports are inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported, resulting in noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements. We were unable to verify the complete lists of beneficiaries of the P-EBT. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers 2023-001/2023-029. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish an internal control process that includes having more than one person review the reports submitted to the Federal government. In addition, we recommend proper internal controls that require a structured process of compiling, reviewing and safeguarding all required data for benefits issued.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-023 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-004) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 10.566) NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) (ALN – 93.560) PAYMENT TO TERRITORIES – ADULT (ALN – 93.568) LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 231PR426S7003/4; 241PR426S7003/4 (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2022 through 9/30/2024) 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2023) 2401PRTANF1 (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2023 through 9/30/2026) 2301PRTABD; 2401PRTABD (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2022 through 9/30/2026) 2201PRLIEA; 2301PRLIEA; 2401PRLIEA (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2025) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 §200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: “(a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (See § 200.450). (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number, year the Federal award was issued, and name of the Federal agency or pass-through entity. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. When a Federal agency or pass-through entity requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient or subrecipient that maintains its records other than on an accrual basis, the recipient or subrecipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient or subrecipient may develop accrual data for its reports based on an analysis of the documentation on hand. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and assets. The recipient or subrecipient must safeguard all assets and ensure they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. (5) Comparison of expenditures with budget amounts for each Federal award. (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305. (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures, we conducted an analysis of the process used to distribute administrative costs among the various programs administered by ADSEF. Administrative expenses are distributed based on a methodology called "Random Moment Sampling" (RMS). We identified the following deficiencies in the implementation and execution of this process: i. There is no written procedure that outlines the process for applying this formula for distributing administrative expenses. ii. There is no standardized monitoring or communication to ensure that employees who are required to complete this form are fully assigned to the roles subject to this process. In other words, the Human Resources Department or the Appointments Office do not communicate periodically or whenever a staff change occurs, in order to adjust the population subject to this questionnaire. iii. Among the options provided for responding to the RMS survey, three options are not assigned to a Federal program. These options include licenses; other types of work not directly tied to a Federal program function for which administrative expenses can be allocated. According to the State Plan, 3,300 questionnaires will be administered for functions performed by employees who are not at the central level, and 300 for employees who are at the central level. Two quarters of the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 fiscal year were observed, in which these three options represented between 25% and 18% for local offices and 38% at the central level. Because these options are not tied to a Federal program function, they reduce the percentage to zero and redistribute the percentage among Federal programs. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION We consider this deficiency a systemic problem. This allocation of administrative expenses is made quarterly; however, the adjustment in the accounting system (PRIFAS) is not necessarily made in the same period. The administrative expenses of each program contain the redistribution of expenses not assigned to a Federal program. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have a written procedure establishing the process for implementing and monitoring the execution of this methodology. Additionally, among the responses regarding functions performed, time may be allocated to functions not related to Federal programs. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT They lack a standardized process that ensures that the methodology used allocates reasonable administrative costs among Federal programs, ensures that the distribution base is complete, and is periodically monitored. Furthermore, by redistributing the percentage of responses not directly related to a Federal program function, administrative costs could be claimed from Federal programs that should likely be allocated to state funds. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers 2023-004/2023-032. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish a written internal control procedure that provides certainty, monitoring frequency, data validation, and responsibilities for those responsible for executing this process. Additionally, it should be considered that there are functions performed by the personnel in charge of answering the RMS that are not directly linked to a Federal program and should be assigned to state funds.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-024 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-005) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 10.566) NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 231PR426S7003/4 (Federal Award Years: 10/01/2022 through 09/30/2023); 241PR426S7003/4 (Federal Award Years: 10/01/2023 through 09/30/2024) 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 10/01/2022 through 09/30/2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 §200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: “(a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (See § 200.450). (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number, year the Federal award was issued, and name of the Federal agency or pass-through entity. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. When a Federal agency or pass-through entity requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient or subrecipient that maintains its records other than on an accrual basis, the recipient or subrecipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient or subrecipient may develop accrual data for its reports based on an analysis of the documentation on hand. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. … (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305. (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures, we requested evidence of the indirect costs transactions. ADSEF is allowed to claim 16.80% of indirect costs. As part of our audit procedures over the Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico and TANF program, we selected some transactions to evaluate the compliance with the indirect cost’s claims. The TANF program reported three (3) transactions related to indirect costs in the amount of $569,998.55, and for the Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico three (3) transactions were reported in the amount of $4,815,418.41. We requested evidence of one (1) transaction for the TANF program and one (1) for the Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico, no evidence of class object was provided in order to ascertain that only allowable expenditure transactions were considered in the calculation and claim of indirect costs. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION We consider this deficiency a systemic problem. ADSEF does not have an internal control process that allows for proper authorization and monitoring of the claims made for indirect costs. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have a written procedure establishing the process for claiming and documenting indirect costs claims. The process of recording indirect costs is based on an excel spreadsheet, no detail of costs indicating the class object and transactions considered are maintained. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT Indirect costs calculation may include unallowable costs and not be detected timely. ADSEF cannot provide proper audit evidence of the amounts claimed as indirect costs. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers 2023-005/2023-033. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish internal control processes to reconcile PRIFAS and the various sources of information used for reporting. Additionally, maintain clear records of indirect costs claimed and awarded.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-025 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.556) MARYLEE ALLEN PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES (ALN – 93.667) SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2203PRFPSS; 2303PRFPSC; 2202PRFPCV; 2302PRFPCV; 2302PRPKIN (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2023) 2211PRSOSR; 2311PRSOSR (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2022 through 9/30/2024) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN (ADFAN, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES // CASH MANAGEMENT TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL – SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 §200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: “(a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (See § 200.450). (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): … (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305. (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures, we verified the requirements for the written procedures policies, and we didn’t obtain by ADFAN the required documentation. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This deficiency is a systemic problem that is related to written policies and procedures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADFAN has not established a work plan to maintain the written procedures policies required by the Uniform Guidance. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT The absence of written procedures may lead to inconsistent program implementation, unclear assignment of responsibilities, and inadequate oversight. This increases the risk of noncompliance with applicable regulations, inefficiencies in operations, and reduced effectiveness in achieving program objectives. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers 2023-006/2023-034. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that ADFAN develop, formalize, and implement comprehensive written procedures for the programs to comply with the Uniform Guidance. These procedures should clearly define roles and responsibilities, establish operational workflows, and include mechanisms for monitoring and compliance. Doing so will help ensure consistency in program execution, accountability, and alignment with regulatory and performance requirements.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-031 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-010) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.568) LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2201PRLIEA (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2021 – 9/30/2023) 2301PRLIEA (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) 2401PRLIEA (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2023 – 9/30/2025) 2301PRLIEE (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) 2301PRLIEI (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ELIGIBILITY TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.334, Record retention requirements, establishes that: the recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. In addition, the State Plan indicates the documentation that should be provided in order to determine eligibility, which included: evidence of ID of the participant, evidence of low income, evidence of electricity bill. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures for eligibility requirements, we selected forty (40) participants from a population of 166,441 who received the benefits of the program. In relation to those participants that the benefit was not based on eligibility for PAN or TANF programs, we found the following deficiencies: 1. In thirteen (13) participants the ID was not included in the file provided. 2. In accordance with SAIC one (1) participant, the benefit was determined for $893.54, although, in accordance with the file provided, the benefit should have been $607.39. 3. In one (1) participant file, no evidence of the electricity bill was provided, no evidence of eligibility determination nor approved benefit. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. ADSEF was unable to demonstrate compliance with these compliance requirements. The sample was statistically valid sample. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have appropriate internal controls over the records retention, eligibility determination and documentation requirements. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT Participants that do not comply with the criteria to be eligible, might have received the benefits. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers is 2023-012/2023-040. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend management to implement appropriate internal controls over the record retention, eligibility determination, and required documentation in the participant’s files.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-037 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-015) FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 10.566) NUTRITION ASSISTANCE FOR PUERTO RICO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AWARD NUMBERS 231PR426S7003/4 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 through – 9/30/2023); 241PR426S7003/4 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2023 through – 9/30/2024) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT REPORTING TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR § 200.302, Financial Management, establishes that (a) each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See § 200.450. In section (b), the recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): … (6) written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305 and (7) written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The 2 CFR §200.303 (a) establishes that the recipient and subrecipient must: establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient or subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should align with the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over internal controls and compliance for reporting requirements, we selected two reports that closed during our fiscal year audit. With respect with the Grant Award 231PR426S7003/4 and 241PR426S7003/4 we noted the following deficiencies: 1) The PRDF was unable to provide supporting documentation for the administrative expenditures that reconcile the figures reported with the PRIFAS accounting system. 2) In addition, for all the Federal awards mentioned above, based on internal control interviews, we found that there is no designated individual responsible for independently reviewing the reports prior to submission to ensure accuracy and consistency with source data. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This deficiency is a systemic problem. Procedures and internal controls manuals should provide for and ensure the segregation of duties, and the reconciliation of financial information reported to Federal agencies against the accounting records used to prepare financial statement and SEFA. ADSEF failure to support reported amounts with verifiable documentation and the absence of independent review increases the risk of inaccurate or misstated financial data being reported to the Federal awarding agency. STATEMENT OF CAUSE During our interviews and understanding of the internal controls over financial reporting, we noted that only one person prepares, submits and certifies the required reports. No proper segregation of duties exists, that allows for validation of all accounting data before submitting the reports. In addition, the procedures manual for preparing reports does not establish a clear process for obtaining information, validating it, recording it, preparing it, and reporting it, as well as the responsibilities and segregation of duties to ensure that the reported information is consistent with ADSEF's accounting records. Furthermore, they lack a written procedures manual detailing the processes to follow in obtaining accounting data and reporting it to the Federal government, ensuring that the responsibility does not fall on a single individual. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not ensure that the reports are accurate and traceable to the accounting database used to prepare their financial reports to the Federal Agencies and their financial statement. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers is 2023-020/2023-049. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend ADSEF establish written internal controls and specific procedures to ensure that all reported amounts are fully supported and reconciled with the PRIFAS accounting system and to assign responsibility to a designated official to review and approve all reports prior to submission to the Federal agency. Implement internal controls to maintain adequate documentation supporting all financial data reported.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-041 FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 93.568) LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2301PRLIEA (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) 2401PRLIEA (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2023 – 9/30/2025) 2301PRLIEE (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) 2301PRLIEI (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2024) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT REPORTING – PERFORMANCE TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR § 200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: (a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (See § 200.450.) (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number, year the Federal award was issued, and name of the Federal agency or pass-through entity. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. When a Federal agency or pass-through entity requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient or subrecipient that maintains its records other than on an accrual basis, the recipient or subrecipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient or subrecipient may develop accrual data for its reports based on an analysis of the documentation on hand. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and assets. The recipient or subrecipient must safeguard all assets and ensure they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. … (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305 and (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. LlHEAP Performance Data Form (OMB No 0970-0449) – State grant recipients must submit this report by January 3lst regarding the prior Federal fiscal year. The first section of the report is the Grant recipient Survey that collects and reports data on sources and uses of LIHEAP funds. The Grant recipient Survey includes Section III: Estimated Sources of Funds and Section IV: Estimated Use of LIHEAP Funds. Note: that these are referencing obligated not expended funding. The rest of the report is regarding performance metrics, mostly related to home energy burden targeting and reduction, as well as the continuity of home energy service. The Grantee Survey obligation amounts should be compared with the Carryover and Reallotment and FFR-425 reports. This reconciliation is needed to make sure the obligated balances for the program year being tested are accurate. Annual Report on Households Assisted by LIHEAP (OMB No. 0970-0060) https://omb.report/icr/202211-0970-005 – As part of the application for block grant funds each year, a report is required for the preceding fiscal year of (1) the number and income levels of the households assisted for each component and any type of LHEAP assistance (heating, cooling, crisis, and weatherization); and (2) the number of households served that contained young children, elderly, or persons with disabilities, or any vulnerable household for each component. Quarterly Performance and Management Report (OMB No. 0970-0589) https://omb.report/icr/202205-0970-017/doc/121847100 – Grant recipients must submit data and information about LIHEAP during the current FY, including success, challenges, needs and innovations. The quarterly reports focus on assisted households, performance management, obligation of funding, changes made due to anticipated increase in energy bills, collaboration with other utility programs, training and technical assistance needs. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over the financial reporting requirements for LIHEAP program, we selected three reports submitted during our fiscal year. We noted that the administrative expenditures do not reconcile with the accounting information from PRIFAS. In addition, there are no written procedures describing internal controls over this requirement. We requested the LIHEAP Performance Data (OMB No 0970-0449), but no evidence of the report was provided. We obtained a copy of the Annual Report on Households Assisted by LlHEAP (OMB No. 0970-0060), but no supporting documentation regarding the information reported was provided. We requested two quarterly reports for the Quarterly Performance and Management Report (OMB No. 0970-0589) for the 2301LIEA grant, but no documentation was provided. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systematic deficiency. Procedures and internal controls manuals should provide for and ensure the segregation of duties, and the reconciliation of financial information reported to federal agencies against the accounting records used to prepare financial statements and SEFA. ADSEF failure to support reported amounts with verifiable documentation and the absence of independent review increases the risk of inaccurate or misstated financial data being reported to the Federal awarding agency. In relation to Special and Performance Reports, there are no proper controls over the data reported and the supporting information. STATEMENT OF CAUSE During our interviews and understanding of the internal controls over financial reporting, we noted that only one person prepares, submits and certifies the SF– 425 reports. No proper segregation of duties exists, that allows for validation of all accounting data before submitting the reports. In addition, the procedures manual for preparing reports does not establish a clear process for obtaining information, validating it, recording it, preparing it, and reporting it, as well as the responsibilities and segregation of duties to ensure that the reported information is consistent with ADSEF's accounting records. ADSEF lacks internal controls that allow for the timely validation and reconciliation of financial information. Furthermore, they lack a written procedures manual detailing the processes to follow in obtaining accounting data and reporting it to the Federal government, ensuring that the responsibility does not fall on a single individual. In relation to the Special and Performance Reports, the lack of written procedures and proper safeguarding of documentation does not allow for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of these reports. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not ensure that the reports are accurate and traceable to the accounting database used to prepare their financial reports to the Federal Agencies and their financial statement. We were unable to evaluate internal controls and compliance over the Special and Performance Reports. ADSEF might not comply with the requirements of the program and not report it on time to the regulatory agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers 2023-021/2023-051. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend ADSEF to establish written procedures and internal controls manuals to provide and document the segregation of duties related to the reporting compliance requirement. In addition, in relation to the Special and Performance Reports create internal controls that provide for obtaining information, preparing reports, and filing evidence of reports.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-042 FEDERAL PROGRAM (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2021 – 9/30/2022) 2023G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT REPORTING – PERFORMANCE TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA In accordance with 45 CFR, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Part 265.7, states that: (a) Each State's quarterly reports [the TANF Data Report, the TANF Financial Report (or Territorial Financial Report), the SSP-MOE Data Report, and the Work Outcomes of TANF Exciters Report] must be complete and accurate and filed by the due date. (b) For a disaggregated data report, “a complete and accurate report” means that: (1) The reported data accurately reflects information available to the State in case records, financial records, and automated data systems, and includes correction of the quarterly data by the end of the fiscal year reporting period; (2) The data are free from computational errors and are internally consistent (e.g., items that should add to totals do so); (3) The State reports data for all required elements (i.e., no data is missing); (4) (i) The State provides data on all families; or (ii) If the State opts to use sampling, the State reports data on all families selected in a sample that meets the specification and procedures in the TANF Sampling Manual (except for families listed in error); and (5) Where estimates are necessary (e.g., some types of assistance may require cost estimates), the State uses reasonable methods to develop these estimates. (c) For an aggregated data report, “a complete and accurate report” means that: (1) The reported data accurately reflects information available to the State in case records, financial records, and automated data systems; (2) The data are free from computational errors and are internally consistent (e.g., items that should add to totals do so); (3) The State reports data on all applicable elements; and (4) Monthly totals are unduplicated counts for all families (e.g., the number of families and the number of out-of-wedlock births are unduplicated counts). In addition, 2 CFR § 200.302 (a) establishes that each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See § 200.450. In section (b) the recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (6) written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305 and (7) written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our procedures for understanding internal controls for the preparation of ACF-199 reports, we request a procedures manual on how these reports are processed and the personnel responsible for each process. ADSEF did not provide us with a manual describing the data collection process, how the information provided by the regions is validated, and the individuals responsible for submitting the reports. Also, they should have completed the ACF-209 report for the quarters of December 2023 and June 2024 and no evidence was provided. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. Following the sample selection, ADSEF failed to demonstrate a control structure, as it was unable to provide a formal procedures manual for the reporting process. The sampling was a statistically valid sample. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF did not establish and implement written policies and procedures governing the preparation, review, validation, and submission of TANF reports. In addition, management did not implement adequate monitoring controls to ensure that required reports were prepared, reviewed, and submitted timely in accordance with Federal requirements. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT As a result, ADSEF was unable to demonstrate that adequate controls existed to ensure the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of TANF reporting. This condition resulted in the failure to submit the required ACF-209 reports for the quarters ended December 31, 2023, and June 30, 2024, and increases the risk that Federal reports may contain incomplete or inaccurate information, thereby affecting Federal oversight and decision-making. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Number is 2023-052. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish internal control procedures manuals that clearly outline the processes to be followed for data collection, recording, and reporting. Additionally, standardize the way documents related to participant files are filed.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-044 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-016) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.556) MARYLEE ALLEN PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES (ALN – 93.667) SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBER 2203PRFPSS (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2023); 2202PRFPCV (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2023) 2211PRSOSR (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN (ADFAN, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT REPORTING TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR § 200.302 (a) establishes that each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See § 200.450. In addition, the SF-425 Federal Financial Report requires the reporting of financial activities related to Federal awards. The accounting basis used for reporting expenditures (whether cash or accrual) must align with the accounting system employed by the recipient organization. The 2 CFR § 200.302 (b), establish that the recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): … (6) written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305 and (7) written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The 2 CFR section 200.328(c) establishes that the recipient or subrecipient must submit financial reports as required by the Federal award. Reports submitted annually by the recipient or subrecipient must be due no later than 90 calendar days after the reporting period. Reports submitted quarterly or semiannually must be due no later than 30 calendar days after the reporting period. The 2 CFR §200.303 (a) establishes that the recipient and subrecipient must: establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient or subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should align with the guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over internal controls and compliance for reporting requirements, we selected the Grant Awards 2203PRFPSS and 2202PRFPCV, which closes in the audit period from July 2023 to June 2024, to validate the recorded amounts. Upon evaluating the report for the Grant Award 2203PRFPSS, we found the following deficiencies: 1) The accounting basis should be Cash Basis instead of Accrual Basis, according to the accounting system used. Additionally, they provided a Procedures Manual for the Finance and Budget Divisions, approved in 2009 and delivered in Word format, which states that the accounting basis is “accrual”, even though their current system operates on a cash basis and no conversion to accrual basis was made. 2) The total Federal expenditure reported on line (e) does not match the database provided by the PRDF. 3) The matching expenditure on line (j) does not match the database provided by the PRDF. 4) The report was not submitted within the established deadline, December 31, 2023 and they submitted the report on July 8, 2024. 5) During the internal control’s interviews, we found that there is no designated person responsible for reviewing the information entered by the preparer. As part of our audit procedures over internal controls and compliance for reporting requirements, we selected the Grant Award 2211PRSOSR, which closes in the audit period from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, to validate the recorded amounts. Upon evaluating the report, we found the following deficiencies: 1) The accounting basis should be Cash Basis instead of Accrual Basis, according to the accounting system used. Additionally, they provided a Procedures Manual for the Finance and Budget Divisions, approved in 2009 and delivered in Word format, which states that the accounting basis is “accrual”, even though their current system operates on a cash basis and no conversion to accrual basis was made. 2) The total Federal expenditure reported on line (e) does not match the database provided by the PRDF. 3) The report was not submitted within the established deadline, December 31, 2023 and they submitted the report on June 10, 2024. 4) During the internal control’s interviews, we found that there is no designated person responsible for reviewing the information entered by the preparer. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This deficiency is a systemic problem. Procedures and internal controls manuals should provide for and ensure the segregation of duties, training, and the reconciliation of financial information reported to Federal agencies against the accounting records used to prepare financial statement and SEFA. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADFAN does not have internal controls to effectively review the process and comply with the reporting requirements. The absence of effective internal controls at ADFAN to review processes and ensure compliance with reporting requirements can be attributed to inadequate organizational structure and insufficiently defined roles and responsibilities. There is no designated individual or team responsible for overseeing the accuracy and completeness of financial data entered reports. As mentioned above in the condition, this responsibility falls under one person and does not have segregation of duties. This gap in accountability stems from a lack of internal review and insufficient oversight mechanisms, which restrains the organization's ability to ensure that reports are fully aligned with the required compliance standards. Additionally, there is a lack of training or resources dedicated to maintaining and monitoring compliance which contributes to the failure in reporting requirements. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADFAN does not ensure that the reports are accurate and traceable to the accounting database used to prepare their financial reports for the Federal Agencies and their financial statement. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers is 2023-023/2023-054. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that ADFAN ensures the SF-425 is completed using the appropriate accounting basis consistent with the organization’s financial system. Additionally, ADFAN should establish and implement internal control procedures that include formal review process to verify the accuracy and completeness of the reported information and designate responsible personnel for the review and approval of reports prior to submission to ensure compliance with Federal reporting requirements.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-046 (See Finding Reference Number 2024-018) FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) (ALN – 93.560) PAYMENT TO TERRITORIES – ADULT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2021 – 9/30/2022) 2023G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2022 – 9/30/2023) 2022G9922PT (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2022 through 9/30/2025) 2301PRTABD (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2023 through 9/30/2026) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT REPORTING – FINANCIAL REPORTING TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA The 2 CFR 200 §200.302, Financial Management, establishes that: “(a) Each State must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with State laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the State's funds. All recipient and subrecipient financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by the terms and conditions; and tracking expenditures to establish that funds have been used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See § 200.450. (b) The recipient's and subrecipient's financial management system must provide for the following (see §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number, year the Federal award was issued, and name of the Federal agency or pass-through entity. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. When a Federal agency or pass-through entity requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient or subrecipient that maintains its records other than on an accrual basis, the recipient or subrecipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient or subrecipient may develop accrual data for its reports based on an analysis of the documentation on hand. (3) Maintaining records that sufficiently identify the amount, source, and expenditure of Federal funds for Federal awards. These records must contain information necessary to identify Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, as well as assets, expenditures, income, and interest. All records must be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and assets. The recipient or subrecipient must safeguard all assets and ensure they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. … (6) Written procedures to implement the requirements of § 200.305 and (7) Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures over the reporting requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Payment to Territories – Adult (PTTA) programs, we reviewed two ACF-196TR reports submitted during the fiscal year under audit. Our review disclosed deficiencies related to the accuracy, support, reconciliation, and timeliness of reported expenditures. Specifically, we noted the following: • Administrative expenditures for both TANF and PTTA are recorded under the same accounting account number and Assistance Listing Number associated with TANF. As a result, the PRIFA accounting system does not segregate administrative expenditures by federal award or Assistance Listing Number, limiting the ability to identify and track expenditures attributable to each program. • Amounts reported in the ACF-196TR reports could not be reconciled to the PRIFA accounting records, particularly for administrative expenditures. Upon request, management was unable to provide supporting schedules, reconciliations, or documentation demonstrating how the reported amounts were derived. Supporting information was prepared only after it was requested during the audit. • For grant award 2023G996117, reported expenditures in the quarterly report of September 30, 2023, that did not agree with the underlying accounting records. We identified differences of $7,266.40 in Line 6A (Work-Related Activities and Expenses), $1,745,668.00 in Line 5A (Basic Assistance), $1,645,366.55 in Line 6J (Administration), $2,007,611.62 in Line 3 (Transfer to SSBG), and $103,052.41 in Line 10 (Total Expenditures). In addition, the report was submitted after the applicable due date. • For grant award 2401PRTANF, reported expenditures in the June 30, 2024 quarterly report that also differed from the accounting records. We identified differences of $12,312.07 in Line 6A (Work-Related Activities and Expenses), $1,898,639.95 in Line 6J (Administration), $3,786,696.14 in Line 3 (Transfer to SSBG), and $1,902,297.08 in Line 10 (Total Expenditures). Furthermore, the report maintained by ADSEF did not contain evidence of the submission date; therefore, we were unable to determine whether the report was submitted within the required timeframe. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systematic deficiency. Procedures and internal controls manuals should provide for and ensure the segregation of duties, and the reconciliation of financial information reported to Federal agencies against the accounting records used to prepare financial statements and SEFA. In addition, the financial management system should provide to account separately the administrative expenditures incurred among all Federal programs administered. ADSEF failure to support reported amounts with verifiable documentation and the absence of independent review increases the risk of inaccurate or misstated financial data being reported to the Federal awarding agency. STATEMENT OF CAUSE During our interviews and understanding of the internal controls over financial reporting, we noted that only one person prepares, submits and certifies the ACF-196TR reports. No proper segregation of duties exists, that allows for validation of all accounting data before submitting the reports. In addition, the procedures manual for preparing reports does not establish a clear process for obtaining information, validating it, recording it, preparing it, and reporting it, as well as the responsibilities and segregation of duties to ensure that the reported information is consistent with ADSEF's accounting records. PRIFAS accounting data base as configured, does not provide for the administrative expenditures incurred from the TANF and Payment to Territories – Adult programs to be segregated. ADSEF lacks internal controls that allow for the timely validation and reconciliation of financial information. Furthermore, they lack a written procedures manual detailing the processes to follow in obtaining accounting data and reporting it to the Federal government, ensuring that the responsibility does not fall on a single individual. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not ensure that the reports are accurate and traceable to the accounting database used to prepare their financial reports to the Federal Agencies and their financial statement. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers is 2023-025/2023-056. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend ADSEF to establish written procedures and internal controls manuals to provide and document the segregation of duties related to the reporting compliance requirement. Additionally, work with the Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury to provide accounting records to segregate the administrative expenditures of both programs.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-051 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/2021 – 9/30/2022) 2023G996117 (Federal Award Year: 10/1/20212 – 9/30/2023) 2401PRTANF1 (Federal Award Years: 10/1/2023 through 9/30/2026) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SPECIAL TESTS & PROVISIONS – PENALTY FOR REFUSAL TO WORK / LACK OF CHILD CARE FOR SINGLE CUSTODIAL PARENT OF CHILD UNDER AGE SIX / PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WORK VERIFICATION PLAN TYPE OF FINDING INTERNAL CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE – MATERIAL WEAKNESS AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE CRITERIA 2 CFR 200.334, Record retention requirements, establishes that: the recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. For awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, the recipient and subrecipient must retain records for three years from the date of submission of their quarterly or annual financial report, respectively. Records to be retained include but are not limited to financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Further, in §200.337, Access to records, requires in (a) Records of recipients and subrecipients. The Federal agency or pass-through entity, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their authorized representatives must have the right of access to any records of the recipient or subrecipient pertinent to the Federal award to perform audits, execute site visits, or for any other official use. This right also includes timely and reasonable access to the recipient's or subrecipient's personnel for the purpose of interviewing and discussion related to such documents or the Federal award in general. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our audit procedures related to tests and special provisions, we selected the following samples: a. Five (5) participants from a population of 23 individuals who were sanctioned for non-compliance with the employment requirement. b. Twenty-five (25) files from a population of 294 participants who were sanctioned for non-compliance with the employment verification plan. c. Twenty-five (25) files from a population of 285 participants who had documented just cause for not having childcare responsibilities. During our review of the selected files, we identified the following deficiencies: a. Just Cause for Not Having Childcare Responsibilities 1. Five (5) files were not provided for audit review. b. Sanctioned for Non-Compliance with the Employment Requirement 1. One (1) file did not contain information for the audit period under review. 2. One (1) file was in the process of being digitized and was therefore unavailable for evaluation. c. Non-Cooperation with the PRI 1. Five (5) files were not provided for audit review. 2. Three (3) files did not indicate the sanction period. 3. Three (3) files lacked documentation for the audit period under review. 4. One (1) file did not contain the required forms necessary to evaluate the sanction. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This deficiency is systematic. ADSEF lacks an adequate process for archiving files and the information each file should contain. This is a statistically valid sample. STATEMENT OF CAUSE ADSEF does not have an adequate archiving process that allows for the identification of files in a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, there is no formal training or archive process for all regions and local authorities for the personnel involved in determining eligibility and the required evidence that should be kept for the audit process. Further, the information related to any sanction should be clearly identified in the participant’s file, so a follow up can be performed adequately and timely. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF was unable to provide the requested information for auditing within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the lack of a uniform archiving process prevents the information contained in the files from being properly identified and reviewed. In addition, these deficiencies in the documentation, do not allow proper follow-up of the sanction period, this could allow payments to participants who are not in compliance with the regulations. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat of a finding reported in the prior audit as Finding Numbers is 2023-060. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish an adequate internal controls process that provides for the archiving of information in participant files and the identification of files within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, a structure for follow up on the sanctions should be in place in order to properly monitor compliance with this requirement.
FINDING 2024-006 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014, S010A230014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children; Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate; Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment Testing Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 39 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report for control activities - activities allowed or unallowed; allowable costs/cost principles; cash management; reporting; matching, level of effort, earmarking; and special tests and provisions - participation in private school children. The prior audit finding numbers were 2022-005, 2022-006, 2022-008, and 2022-009. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the entity will achieve its objectives. For federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards to provide reasonable assurance that the entity will comply with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its awards. Internal control is not a single event but an ongoing process that operates through five integrated components: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. Each component must function effectively, and the components must operate together in an integrated manner, for an internal control system to be effective. Deficiencies in the internal control system were identified across the five components and are described below. Control Environment - Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children; Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate; Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment Testing The School Corporation had not established a strong foundation for an effective internal control system. There was no demonstrated emphasis on the importance of internal controls or on compliance with federal program requirements. Risk Assessment - Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children; Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate; Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment Testing The School Corporation had not defined objectives necessary to identify risks or determine risk tolerances. Management did not identify, analyze, or respond to risks that could affect the achievement of objectives, including risks arising from significant changes to operations or the potential for fraud. Control Activities The School Corporation did not maintain sufficient financial records for its Title I programs. Although separate funds were established, expenditures were not accurately recorded, preventing the auditors from properly testing compliance with the federal requirements for the Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children compliance requirements. Notable errors included payroll mapping errors, as well as unsupported reimbursement requests. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 40 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Expenditures as reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards are based on reimbursements received during the audit period. To determine the specific expenditures associated with each reimbursement request the corresponding ledger activity or other applicable supporting documentation was requested. Based on the documentation provided, or lack thereof, it was determined that reimbursement requests were not prepared using expenditures recorded in the Title I funds. Instead, other undocumented or inconsistently retained records were used, and the amounts in those records did not align with the reimbursement requests submitted or the related fund activity. Of the 13 reimbursement claims submitted: There were 5 reimbursement requests totaling $854,889 filed in fiscal year 2022-2023 that had no supporting documentation, and the amounts requested did not agree with the disbursement activity recorded in the grant program funds. There were 8 reimbursement requests totaling $496,155 and received in 2023-2024 that had supporting documentation; however, the documentation agreed with reimbursement request amount in only 4 instances. For the other 4 reimbursement requests where documentation was provided, discrepancies totaling $15,982 were identified between the documentation and the amounts requested. Additionally, the documentation used to support 2023-2024 reimbursement requests did not correspond to the ledger activity recorded in the Title I program funds; instead, the School Corporation relied on separate individual payroll reports that were not tied to the program's financial records. Due to the lack of adequate documentation, we were unable to determine the validity of expenditures claimed for reimbursement, and, therefore, could not determine a population of expenditures to verify for compliance testing. This resulted in questioned costs totaling $1,351,044. Additional issues included: The former Chief Financial Officer did not direct the payroll clerk to allocate salaries and benefits for Title I personnel to the appropriate funds. As a result, salary and benefit costs were charged to the Title I funds for employees who did not work on the program, while costs for employees who did work on the program were charged to non-Title I funds. Receipt activity recorded in the Title I program funds did not always reflect actual Title I grant receipts. For example, receipts totaling $63,901 for the Supportive Effective Instruction State Grants program (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants), Assistance Listings Number 84.367, were incorrectly recorded in the Title I fund. A separate fund was not created for the 2022-2023 grant project year as required by the pass-through entity; instead, an existing project year fund was used. Transfers totaling $993,763 in 2022-2023 and $73,107 in 2023-2024 were made into the Title I program funds from other funds or between Title I project years without adequate supporting documentation explaining the composition of the transfer amounts. Transfers totaling $650,150 in 2022-2023 were made out of the Title I program funds to other funds or other Title I project years, without sufficient supporting documentation identifying the nature of the transferred amounts. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 41 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Information and Communication - Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children; Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate; Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment Testing The School Corporation had not established adequate communication methods or practices to ensure that reliable information was identified, captured, and communicated to the appropriate internal and external parties. Monitoring - Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children; Special Tests and Provisions - Annual Report Card, High School Graduation Rate; Special Tests and Provisions - Assessment Testing The School Corporation did not perform ongoing or periodic evaluations to determine whether internal controls were operating effectively or to identify needed improvement. In addition, the School Corporation did not have a process in place to track or to follow-up on corrective actions written in response to audit findings. Due to the number and severity of the issues identified with the program's financial records and supporting documentation, we were unable to perform the procedures necessary to test the program for compliance. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 42 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability for, all funds, property, and other assets. The non-Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." Cause The School Corporation had not implemented an effective system of internal controls. Changes in key financial personnel, along with insufficient employee training, contributed to processes and procedures not being properly developed or consistently followed. Additionally, employees' salaries and benefits associated with the Title I programs were not mapped to the proper funds in the accounting software. Finally, reimbursement requests were completed based upon documentation, other than the ledger, that was not always retained or when retained did not agree with the amounts requested. Transfers in and out of Title I program funds did not contain sufficient supporting documentation to determine the specific purposes of the transfers Effect Because the five components of internal control were not properly designed or implemented, the School Corporation's internal control system could not be effective. As a result, general and fraud-related risks, as well as risks arising from significant operational changes, could negatively impact the School Corporation. Existing internal control deficiencies may continue undetected, and additional weaknesses may exist without being identified. Additionally, because the School Corporation did not establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure that the required documentation was obtained and retained, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine whether the School Corporation complied with the applicable federal program compliance requirements. This lack of documentation created a scope limitation for the audit and increased the risk that noncompliance, if present, may not have been detected. The inability to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements may affect the School Corporation's ability to support current program expenditures and may place eligibility for future federal funding at risk. Finally, salary and benefit expenditures were recorded to the Title I grant program funds for employees who were not involved with the program and expenditures for those involved with the program were recorded to non-Title I funds. Reimbursement requests could not be reconciled to the detailed ledger of expenditures. As such, a complete and accurate population of expenditures, that reconciled to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards or the financial statement could not be determined. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 43 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $1,351,044 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended the School Corporation design and implement a system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to the five components of internal control. Management should define clear objectives, identify and assess risks, and develop policies and procedures to address those risks. Regular monitoring should be conducted to ensure internal controls are operating effectively and deficiencies are addressed promptly. We also recommended that the School Corporation ensure employees' salaries and benefits are properly mapped within the accounting system. Additionally, we recommended that all documentation to support a reimbursement request be attached to the reimbursement request and reconciled to the ledger at the time of request. We also recommended that any necessary transfers contain sufficient supporting documentation. Finally, we recommended that the School Corporation maintain complete and accurate records for all grant funds and project years. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-007 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Eligibility Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies Assistance Listings Number: 84.010 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S010A210014, S010A220014, S010A230014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Eligibility Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-007. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the entity will achieve its objectives. For federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards to provide reasonable assurance that the entity will comply with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 44 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Internal control is not a single event, but an ongoing process that operates through five integrated components: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. Each component must function effectively, and the components must operate together in an integrated manner, for an internal control system to be effective. Deficiencies in the internal control system were identified across the five components and are described below. Control Environment The School Corporation had not established a strong foundation for an effective internal control system. There was no demonstrated emphasis on the importance of internal controls or on compliance with federal program requirements. Risk Assessment The School Corporation had not defined objectives necessary to identify risks or determine risk tolerances. Management did not identify, analyze, or respond to risks that could affect the achievement of objectives, including risks arising from significant changes to operations or the potential for fraud. Control Activities The School Corporation had not established an effective system of internal controls to ensure that proper documentation was retained for audit. Summary data of nonpublic enrollment and poverty status were verbally provided to the School Corporation by the participating nonpublic school. The summary data should have been accompanied by supporting documentation. The School Corporation did not retain any supporting documentation for fiscal year 2022-2023 or 2023-2024 nonpublic school enrollment and poverty data. Information and Communication The School Corporation had not established adequate communication methods or practices to ensure that reliable information was identified, captured, and communicated to the appropriate internal and external parties. Monitoring The School Corporation did not perform ongoing or periodic evaluations to determine whether internal controls were operating effectively or to identify needed improvement. In addition, the School Corporation did not have a process in place to track or to follow-up on corrective actions written in response to audit findings. The lack of internal controls and the failure to retain supporting documentation for nonpublic enrollment and poverty figures were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 45 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 34 CFR 200.78(a)(1) states: "After reserving funds, as applicable, under § 200.77, including funds for equitable services for private school students, their teachers, and their families, an LEA must allocate funds under this subpart to school attendance areas and schools, identified as eligible and selected to participate under section 1113(a) or (b) of the ESEA, in rank order on the basis of the total number of public school children from low-income families in each area or school." Cause The School Corporation had not implemented an effective system of internal controls. Changes in key financial personnel, along with insufficient employee training, contributed to processes and procedures not being properly developed or consistently followed. Additionally, management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been retained and made available for audit. The Director of Grants relied on verbal nonpublic information from the nonpublic director and assistance and did not implement procedures to verify, collect, or maintain the detailed supporting records for the nonpublic data. Effect Because the five components of internal control were not properly designed or implemented, the School Corporation's internal control system could not be effective. As a result, general and fraud-related risks, as well as risks arising from significant operational changes, could negatively impact the School Corporation. Existing internal control deficiencies may continue undetected, and additional weaknesses may exist without being identified. Additionally, the School Corporation was unable to demonstrate the accuracy and completeness of the nonpublic school enrollment and poverty data used for 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. The absence of supporting documentation limited the ability to verify compliance with program requirements and increased the risk of reporting errors and misallocation of program resources. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 46 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation establish and implement a system of internal controls and provide training on the system of internal controls to its employees. Additionally, we recommended the School Corporation establish and implement an effective system of internal controls to ensure that required supporting documentation for nonpublic school enrollment and poverty status be obtained and retained. Procedures could include requiring participating nonpublic schools to provide detailed student lists and corresponding poverty (socioeconomic) status as part of the data submission. Management should ensure that all documentation provided is securely maintained and readily available for audit and for verification of compliance with program requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-008 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-138-PN01, 23611-138-PN01, 24611-138-PN01, 22611-138-ARP, 22619-138-PN01, 23619-138-PN01, 24619-138-PN01, 22619-138-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Period of Performance; Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding numbers were 2022-010, 2022-011, and 2022-012. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the entity will achieve its objectives. For federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards to provide reasonable assurance that the entity will comply with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 47 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Internal control is not a single event but an ongoing process that operates through five integrated components: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. Each component must function effectively, and the components must operate together in an integrated manner, for an internal control system to be effective. Deficiencies in the internal control system were identified across the five components and are described below. Control Environment The School Corporation had not established a strong foundation for an effective internal control system. There was no demonstrated emphasis on the importance of internal controls or on compliance with federal program requirements. Risk Assessment The School Corporation had not defined objectives necessary to identify risks or determine risk tolerances. Management did not identify, analyze, or respond to risks that could affect the achievement of objectives, including risks arising from significant changes to operations or the potential for fraud. Control Activities The School Corporation receives federal funding through the Special Education Cluster (IDEA), including the Special Education Grants to States and Special Education Preschool Grants programs, administered by the Indiana Department of Education. These funds are subject to federal requirements regarding activities allowed or unallowed; allowable costs/cost principles; cash management; matching, level of effort, earmarking; period of performance; reporting; and financial documentation. The School Corporation did not maintain sufficient financial records for its special education programs. Although separate funds were established expenditures were not accurately recorded, preventing the auditors from properly testing compliance with the federal requirements for the Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Period of Performance; and Reporting compliance requirements. Notable errors included payroll and fund mapping errors, as well as unsupported reimbursement requests. Salaries and benefits for special education staff were incorrectly mapped, resulting in expenditures being charged to the wrong funds. Additionally, program reimbursement requests were not based upon ledger expenditures and relied on documentation that was either missing or inconsistent with the amounts claimed. Due to insufficient documentation, most expenditures claimed for reimbursement could not be verified, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,694,906. Of the 23 claims for reimbursement filed: There were 11 reimbursements totaling $1,289,892 that lacked supporting documentation and the amount claimed did not agree with the ledger disbursement activity. There were 11 reimbursements totaling $404,904 that either agreed with the grant fund ledger activity or documentation was retained to support the amount claimed for reimbursement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 48 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There was 1 reimbursement totaling $110 that differed from the amount claimed by $1,837, with the amount claimed being less than the supporting documentation. Additional issues included: Receipt activity within the funds was not always reflective of the program grant money received. Special education program receipts totaling $47,913 were receipted to nonspecial education grant funds. A separate fund was not created to identify and record financial activity for each grant project year as required by the pass-through entity. Specifically, separate funds were not created for the Special Education Preschool grant for project years 2022 and 2023. Transfers between funds were made to address deficit fund balances, either due to financial activity being misallocated or errors discovered in transaction recording. However, supporting documentation for these corrections was not kept. In fiscal year 2022-2023, a total of $222,602 was moved into program funds from other sources or between various special education grant project year funds, while $6,653 was transferred in during 2023-2024. Conversely, funds totaling $699,655 in 2022-2023 and $722,283 in 2023-2024 were transferred out of program grant funds to other accounts or between special education grant project year funds. Information and Communication The School Corporation had not established adequate communication methods or practices to ensure that reliable information was identified, captured, and communicated to the appropriate internal and external parties. Monitoring The School Corporation did not perform ongoing or periodic evaluations to determine whether internal controls were operating effectively or to identify needed improvement. In addition, the School Corporation did not have a process in place to track or to follow-up on corrective actions written in response to audit findings. Due to the number and severity of the issues identified with the program's financial records and supporting documentation, we were unable to perform the procedures necessary to test the program for compliance. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 49 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability for, all funds, property, and other assets. The non-Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." Cause The School Corporation had not implemented an effective system of internal controls. Changes in key financial personnel, along with insufficient employee training, contributed to processes and procedures not being properly developed or consistently followed. Additionally, employees' salaries and benefits associated with the special education programs were not mapped to the proper funds in the accounting software. Finally, reimbursement requests were completed based on documentation, other than the ledger, that was not always retained or when retained did not agree with the amounts being requested. Effect Because the five components of internal control were not properly designed or implemented, the School Corporation's internal control system could not be effective. As a result, general and fraud-related risks, as well as risks arising from significant operational changes, could negatively impact the School Corporation. Existing internal control deficiencies may continue undetected, and additional weaknesses may exist without being identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 50 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Additionally, because the School Corporation did not establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure that the required documentation was obtained and retained, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine whether the School Corporation complied with the applicable federal program compliance requirements. This lack of documentation created a scope limitation for the audit and increased the risk that noncompliance, if present, may not have been detected. The inability to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements may affect the School Corporation's ability to support current program expenditures and may place eligibility for future federal funding at risk. Finally, salary and benefit expenditures were recorded to the special education grant program funds for employees who were not involved with the program and expenditures for those involved with the program were recorded to nonspecial education funds. Reimbursement requests could not be reconciled to the detailed ledger of expenditures. As such, a complete and accurate population of expenditures, that reconciled to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards or the financial statement could not be determined. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $1,694,906 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended the School Corporation design and implement a system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to the five components of internal control. Management should define clear objectives, identify and assess risks, and develop policies and procedures to address those risks. Regular monitoring should be conducted to ensure internal controls are operating effectively and deficiencies are addressed promptly. We also recommended that the School Corporation ensure employees' salaries and benefits are properly mapped within the accounting system. Additionally, we recommended that all documentation to support a reimbursement request be attached to the reimbursement request and reconciled to the ledger at the time of request. We also recommended that any necessary transfers contain sufficient supporting documentation. Finally, we recommended that the School Corporation maintain complete and accurate records for all grant funds and project years. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-009 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Equipment and Real Property Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements; Special Tests and Provisions - Participation of Private School Children Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report for activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, cash management, equipment and real property management, and reporting. The prior audit finding numbers were 2022-013, 2022-014, 2022-015, and 2022-016. Condition and Context Internal control is generally defined as a process affected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel that provides reasonable assurance that the entity will achieve its objectives. For federal awards, nonfederal entities, such as the School Corporation, are required to establish and maintain internal control over federal awards to provide reasonable assurance that the entity will comply with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its awards. Internal control is not a single event but an ongoing process that operates through five integrated components: Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring. Each component must function effectively, and the components must operate together in an integrated manner, for an internal control system to be effective. Deficiencies in the internal control system were identified across the five components and are described below. Control Environment The School Corporation had not established a strong foundation for an effective internal control system. There was no demonstrated emphasis on the importance of internal controls or on compliance with federal program requirements. Risk Assessment The School Corporation had not defined objectives necessary to identify risks or determine risk tolerances. Management did not identify, analyze, or respond to risks that could affect the achievement of objectives, including risks arising from significant changes to operations or the potential for fraud. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 52 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Control Activities The School Corporation did not maintain sufficient financial records for its COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund program. Although separate funds were established, expenditures were not accurately recorded, preventing the auditors from properly testing compliance with the federal requirements for Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Cash Management; Equipment and Real Property Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Reporting; Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements; and Special Tests and Provision - Participation of Private School Children compliance requirements. Notable errors included expenditures recorded to the grant funds in the amount of $1,623,704 more than the grant amount awarded, as well as unsupported reimbursement requests. The School Corporation attempted to identify expenditures that they no longer wanted to be considered costs under the grant program to correct the overspending. However, instead of reclassifying the expenditures to the proper funds, monies were transferred into the grant funds from other School Corporation funds. The documentation to support the expenditures to be reallocated was not complete as $296,202 of the transfer amount could not be associated with specific expenditure transactions. Additionally, $839,096 in transactions identified to be reclassified were associated with the prior fiscal year 2021-2022 financial activity. After considering transactions recorded in the fund during 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 that were reallocated to other funds the remaining expenditures in the grant program funds were $138,134 less than the total grant funds claimed for reimbursement during the audit period. Due to insufficient documentation, expenditures claimed for reimbursement could not be verified, resulting in questioned costs totaling $1,654,481. Information and Communication The School Corporation had not established adequate communication methods or practices to ensure that reliable information was identified, captured, and communicated to the appropriate internal and external parties. Monitoring The School Corporation did not perform ongoing or periodic evaluations to determine whether internal controls were operating effectively or to identify needed improvement. In addition, the School Corporation did not have a process in place to track or to follow-up on corrective actions written in response to audit findings. Due to the number and severity of the issues identified with the program's financial records and supporting documentation, we were unable to perform the procedures necessary to test the program for compliance. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 53 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also §§ 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337): (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability for, all funds, property, and other assets. The non-Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. See § 200.303. . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." Cause The School Corporation had not implemented an effective system of internal controls. Changes in key financial personnel, along with insufficient employee training, contributed to processes and procedures not being properly developed or consistently followed. Additionally, expenditures were not properly reviewed to determine if costs were properly recorded to grant funds. Finally, reimbursement requests were completed based on documentation, other than the ledger, that was not always retained or when retained did not agree with the amounts being requested. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 54 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Because the five components of internal control were not properly designed or implemented, the School Corporation's internal control system could not be effective. As a result, general and fraud-related risks, as well as risks arising from significant operational changes, could negatively impact the School Corporation. Existing internal control deficiencies may continue undetected, and additional weaknesses may exist without being identified. Additionally, because the School Corporation did not establish an effective system of internal controls to ensure that the required documentation was obtained and retained, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine whether the School Corporation complied with the applicable federal program compliance requirements. This lack of documentation created a scope limitation for the audit and increased the risk that noncompliance, if present, may not have been detected. The inability to demonstrate compliance with federal requirements may affect the School Corporation's ability to support current program expenditures and may place eligibility for future federal funding at risk. Finally, reimbursement requests could not be reconciled to the detailed ledger of expenditures. As such, a complete and accurate population of expenditures, that reconciled to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards or the financial statement could not be determined. Questioned Costs Questioned costs in the amount of $1,654,481 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended the School Corporation design and implement a system of internal controls, which would include policies and procedures related to the five components of internal control. Management should define clear objectives, identify and assess risks, and develop policies and procedures to address those risks. Regular monitoring should be conducted to ensure internal controls are operating effectively and deficiencies are addressed promptly. We also recommended that the School Corporation review expenditures and financial ledger reports to ensure activity is recorded to the correct fund. Additionally, we recommended that all documentation to support a reimbursement request be attached to the reimbursement request and reconciled to the ledger at the time of request. Finally, we recommended that the School Corporation maintain complete and accurate records for all grant funds and project years. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding: 2024-004: Record Retention Federal Programs - Block grants for Community Mental Health Services. Federal Financial Assistance Listings - 93.958. Federal Award Numbers - 4529066471 and 4529064876. Federal Agencies - Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity - ODMHSAS. Allowable Activities or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Eligibility, and Period of Performance. Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance. Criteria: Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.334) establishes recipients and subrecipients must retain all federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. For awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, the recipient and subrecipient must retain records for three years from the date of submission of their quarterly or annual financial report, respectively. Records to be retained include but are not limited to financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Condition: Hope was unable to provide support for reimbursed expenditures totaling 31,673, as reported in the SEFA. Cause: Management's internal control for retaining documentation was not adequately designed to ensure the population of costs and underlying support could be timely identified and supported under the Uniform Guidance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: Without adequate retention of support for expenditures reported and reimbursed, the auditor was unable to determine if they were in compliance with requirements under the federal award. Questioned Costs: 31,673. Context: The management team and personnel responsible for overseeing document approval and retention changed from the period the costs were initially incurred and approved to the period they were under audit and the current management team was not able to locate the supporting documentation. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No. Recommendation: Management may consider implementing specific retention policies and controls to ensure digital copies as well as sub-listing of all applicable costs being reimbursed are maintained in accordance with the 2 CFR 200.334. Views of Responsible Officials: Management's response is included in the corrective action plan.
FINDING NO: 2024-087 (Repeat #2023-035) Strengthen Retention of RESEA Participant Documentation STATE AGENCY: Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of Labor ALN: 17.225 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Unemployment Insurance Program FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: UI359652160A40, UI380002260A40, 23A60UR000033 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2022-2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Special Tests and Provisions – Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessments (RESEA) QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition and Context: The RESEA program at OESC provides reemployment services to unemployment claimants who are unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation and who are considered likely to use up benefits. The Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 9128 report provides quarterly information on the RESEA activities, which allows for evaluation and monitoring of the RESEA program. We tested 60 Unemployment Insurance claimants, from a population of 12,312 that were profiled for the RESEA program during State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2024. We identified 9 (15%) of the participant files in which documentation for at least one of the nine required RESEA steps was missing. Cause: During SFY 2024, the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission did not have adequate controls, along with timely and/or effective communication of RESEA procedures, including instructions on how to properly retain documentation. Further, due to system malfunctions, for the first three quarters of SFY 2024, there were no formal quality control reviews performed to detect missing documentation and provide feedback to RESEA program staff. Effect: RESEA program evaluation and monitoring may not have been based on correct information and the ETA 9128 performance report may be incomplete and unreliable. RESEA participants may not have received notice regarding their required participation in the RESEA program and may have received benefits for a longer period than necessary. Recommendation: The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission revised the RESEA procedures in the last month of SFY 2023. We recommend the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission continue implementing the new procedures to ensure all documents are properly completed and retained. Additionally, now that the Quality Control program has resumed, we recommend follow-up on all Quality Control findings with training to ensure employees are aware of and understand proper procedures for completing appropriate forms and retaining records to prevent future errors. Criteria: 42 USC § 506(b) – Grants to States for reemployment services and eligibility assessments states in part: “The purposes of this section are to accomplish the following goals: (1) To improve employment outcomes of individuals that receive unemployment compensation and to reduce the average duration of receipt of such compensation through employment. (2) To strengthen program integrity and reduce improper payments of unemployment compensation by States through the detection and prevention of such payments to individuals who are not eligible for such compensation. (3) To promote alignment with the broader vision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) of increased program integration and service delivery for job seekers, including claimants for unemployment compensation. (4) To establish reemployment services and eligibility assessments as an entry point for individuals receiving unemployment compensation into other workforce system partner programs.” Elements of an Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment Services and Eligibility Assessment (RESEA) Grant State Plan, OMB Number: 1205-0538, Question 16. Role of UI Staff, states: “UI program management provides feedback to RESEA program staff regarding identified irregularities. UI program management is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the adjudication process that is tied to RESEA issues such as: failed to report, job search, and able and available issues identified during the eligibility review process, as well as RESEA appointment. UI program management is responsible for training RESEA staff on all UI policy and procedures including detecting any eligibility issues and improper payments. Reports are reviewed by both the UI and RESEA Program managers to ensure the data is reported accurately. Note: At a minimum, UI Staff must be involved with the following activities: Participating in the planning, administration, and oversight of the RESEA program; Training -- Providing all appropriate staff training on unemployment compensation (UC) eligibility requirements; Reports -- Ensuring accurate data are provided in the RESEA-required reports; and Conducting eligibility determinations and redeterminations resulting from issues identified through RESEA participation.” 40 O.S. § 2-421 – Failure to Participate in Reemployment Services through Profiling states: “The Oklahoma Employment Security Commission shall establish and utilize a system of Re-employment Services and Eligibility Assessment selection for all ex-military service claimants and for unemployment benefit claimants who will be likely to exhaust unemployment benefits and who will need job-search assistance services to make a successful transition to new employment. Any claimant who has been referred to re-employment services pursuant to the selection system and who fails to participate in the re-employment services made available to the claimant, shall be disqualified to receive benefits for each week in which the failure occurs, unless the Commission determines that: 1. The claimant has previously completed the re-employment services within the benefit year; or 2. There is good cause for the claimant's failure to participate in re-employment services.” The RESEA Instructions and Procedures, 06/06/2023 and 3/21/2024 revisions, Summary of Documentation states: “The RESEA process will be documented by the following: • Required services: • Reemployment Services & Eligibility Assessment – RESEA • Reemployment Needs Inventory & Eligibility Review • Resume Assistance • Referral to WIOA Services • OKJM Registration • Job Search Planning • Individual Reemployment Plan • Custom Labor Market Information • RESEA – Follow-up • Completing the Individual Reemployment Plan (IEP) according to procedures. • Upload the three (3) required RESEA forms. If the appointment was virtual the RESEA Specialist must signed the form “completed virtually” • Reemployment Needs Inventory & Eligibility Review, OES 802 • RESEA Follow-Up, OES 251(Must be completed and uploaded during the initial appointment.) • Unemployment Eligibility Review Questionnaire for follow-up appointment, OES 173” The RESEA Instructions and Procedures, 06/06/2023 and 3/21/2024 revisions, Notifying UI and the Adjudication Process states in part: “Adjudication Process. Once all notifications have been sent to the OKC Claims Adjudication Unit, the adjudication process follows these general steps: • If the Participant is a no show RESEA Specialist will complete and upload the OES-842 to Docushare and send an email to PRF/JSW/POE@oesc.ok.gov and the 2-421 issue will be placed on the claim and benefits will be denied until attended and no back weeks will be paid. • If the Participant reschedules and attends the same week they were a FTR no show, RESEA Specialist will complete and upload the OES-842 to Docushare, email PRF/JSW/POE@oesc.ok.gov and the 2-421 will be deleted; and the participants will receive their weekly benefits. • If the Participant reschedules and attends any time after the same week, they were a failed to report the RESEA Specialist will report the Participant as attended after denial by completing and upload the OES-842 and send an email to PRF/JSW/POE@oesc.ok.gov. The 2-421 issue will be released that week and no back benefits will be paid.” 2 CFR § 200.303 “Internal controls” states in part: “The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 14.03 states, “Management communicates quality information down and across reporting lines to enable personnel to perform key roles in achieving objectives, addressing risks, and supporting the internal control system. In these communications, management assigns the internal control responsibilities for key roles.” 2 CFR § 200.334 Retention requirements for records states in part: “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient….” Management Response: The agency concurs with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2024-047 Strengthen Controls over Record Retention for Consultant Selection and Indirect Cost Rate Review STATE AGENCY: Oklahoma Department of Transportation FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of Transportation ALN: 20.205 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Highway Planning and Construction FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition and Context: Engineering consultants are selected by an Oklahoma Department of Transportation (Department) Consultant Selection Committee (DCSC). A DCSC is formed for each project as a designated group responsible for evaluating, interviewing, and ranking engineering consultants based on their qualifications, experience, and project approach (qualifications-based selection). The DCSC evaluates interested consultants and develops a short-list of consultants, which is provided to the Director of Engineering for concurrence and the Chief Engineer for approval. After the short-list is approved, the DCSC interviews the consultants and performs evaluations to rank the consultants. The final results are sent to the Director of Engineering for recommendation, to the Chief Engineer for concurrence, and to the Executive Director for approval. The Department’s Grants & Contracts Audit Office (Audit Office, formerly Operations Review and Evaluation) is responsible for reviewing and accepting consultant indirect cost rates to ensure that overhead rates charged to consultant contracts are reasonable, allowable, and compliant with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The Audit Office maintains the review files and the accepted FAR internal cost rate and/or a provisional indirect cost rate. The timeline from DCSC selection, to contracting with a consultant, to reimbursement of eligible consultant claims can span multiple state fiscal years. The Department reimbursed 516 consultant contracts during the audit period, totaling $64,125,923. We tested 47 of the contracts, which included a total of 29 consultants, to determine whether the contracts had related DCSC selection approvals and an accepted FAR indirect cost rate when the Department contracted with the consultant. We identified: • One (1) of the 47 (2.12%) consultant contracts in which the Department was unable to provide the DCSC’s short-list, final recommendation, or the associated selection approvals. • 14 of the 47 (29.79%) contracts, relating to 9 consultants, in which the Department did not have an accepted FAR indirect cost rate and/or a provisional indirect cost rate on record with the Audit Office. Cause: The Department’s record retention process lacked the necessary strength and consistency to ensure the DCSC selection and approval documentation was maintained. Further, the Audit Office experienced turnover in 2021 and 2022, which affected the performance and maintenance of FAR indirect cost rates. Effect: Without a DCSC approved short-list of consultants, the Department is unable to provide proof that consultant contract procurement guidelines were followed. There is also the risk that the consultant selected may not be the most qualified consultant for the project or that the contract was selected due to wrong-doing.* The consultant’s indirect cost rate charged to the contracts may be unreasonable, unallowable, and/or noncompliant with Federal Acquisition Regulations. * The vendor associated with this contract has been used by the Department for years and is an established consultant; therefore, there are no concerns regarding the consultant’s existence, just the methodology used to select the consultant. Recommendation: We recommend the Department evaluate DCSC record retention process and implement training necessary to ensure all DCSC recommendations are maintained in the contract file. Furthermore, we recommend the Department evaluate the FAR indirect cost rate review and retention process and strengthen indirect cost rate review tracking to ensure that all consultants’ indirect cost rates are reviewed annually and retained, and necessary adjustments to the consultants’ provisional indirect cost rates are made. Criteria: 2 CFR § 1201.1 states in part: “Except as otherwise provided in this part, the Department of Transportation adopts the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200)….” 2 CFR § 200.334 states in part: “Retention requirements for records. Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. … “ 23 CFR § 172.11(b) states in part: “Elements of contract costs. The following requirements shall apply to the establishment of the specified elements of contract costs: (1) Indirect Cost Rates. (i) Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant's annual accounting period and in compliance with the Federal cost principles. (ii) Contracting agencies shall accept a consultant's or subconsultant's indirect cost rate(s) established for a 1-year applicable accounting period by a cognizant agency that has: (A) Performed an audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards to test compliance with the requirements of the Federal cost principles and issued an audit report of the consultant's indirect cost rate(s); or (B) Conducted a review of an audit report and related workpapers prepared by a certified public accountant and issued a letter of concurrence with the related audited indirect cost rate(s).” 2 CFR § 200.303 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.1 states in part: “Internal controls for non-Federal entities means: (1) Processes designed and implemented by non-Federal entities to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the following categories: (i) Effectiveness and efficiency of operations; (ii) Reliability of reporting for internal and external use; and (iii) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.” Oklahoma Department of Transportation Guidelines for the Administration of Consultant Contracts, dated June 22, 2016, contains the following guidance: • Section 4.01 Short-List Development states in part: “a) Department Consultant Selection Committee Determination. … The DCSC will review the LOIs submitted by each Consultant. The DCSC is a working committee which consists of a minimum of three (3) representatives (Committee Chair and two (2) members) and is generally determined by the different components of a project (i.e. roadway design, bridge design, survey etc.). The DCSC will be composed of Department representatives with knowledge and expertise in critical aspects of the projects and/or services, and are generally recommended by the Director of Engineering, for Chief Engineer concurrence and Executive Director approval.…” • Section 4.04 Interview Evaluation states in part: “Based upon the DCSC’s evaluation of the proposals and oral presentations, a final ranking is established and the CA provides the Director of Engineering recommendation for Chief Engineer concurrence and Executive Director approval….” • Section 6.11 Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) states: “The Consultant shall certify that the indirect cost rate submitted does not include any costs which are expressly unallowable and that the indirect cost rate was established only with allowable costs in accordance with the applicable cost principles contained in the FAR. The Department’s OR&E Division will be responsible for ensuring that a Consultant’s indirect cost rate complies with the FAR cost principles.” • Section 16.3 states: “An audited FAR indirect cost rate and related information must be submitted by the Consultant to the Department for review and acceptance no later than July 31st following the end of the previous calendar year. A provisional overhead rate may be used until such time that an annual overhead rate is audited and established. In the event the Consultant is unable to provide the audit report within the time frame specified, the Consultant shall submit a written request for an extension citing the reason for the delay. Submittal of the Consultant’s annual indirect cost rate audit will be documented in the Consultant’s contract evaluation.” Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Jennifer Hankins Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2026 Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma Department of Transportation agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2024-075 Strengthen documentation and project scope reviews, enforce procurement, confirm receipt, and recover or reclassify unallowable CSLFRF costs STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Period of Performance, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $630,505 Condition and Context: The Office of Management and Enterprise Services - Grants Management Office (OMESGMO) is the central administering entity of CSLFRF funds for the State of Oklahoma (primary recipient). Although OMES-GMO has the authority to transfer funds, the transfer to state agencies does not create a subrecipient relationship since both entities are part of the same auditee (State of Oklahoma Single Audit). CSLFRF funds were transferred by the State of Oklahoma to twenty-two (22) state agencies, each of which reported CSLFRF expenditures on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2024. We selected nine (9) state agencies for Non-Subrecipient, Subrecipient, and Accounts Payable Testing. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for cash basis testing, we randomly sampled 72 of 489 non-subrecipient transactions totaling $9,447,954 from a population of $14,688,540 (64.3%), and noted the following exceptions: o For five claims reviewed at agency (025), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advance policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. It does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine the costs were allowable since the documentation provided was the same as what is available in the Statewide Accounting System. The claims in Statewide Accounting System were supported with only an OMD Design Build Invoice or professional services invoice. Therefore, it does not appear the claims were properly reviewed since there was not enough support provided by the vendor at the time of payment. Based on our review of additional support and contracts requested through the vendor, the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For four claims reviewed at agency (085), it appears the expenditures were for the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (ALN 11.035 - BEAD) and Digital Equity Act (ALN 11.032 - DEA) State Planning Grant programs. We obtained the scope of work associated with the purchase order for the claims from the Statewide Accounting System and noted it appears CSLFRF funds were used to supplement BEAD and DEA planning and implementation expenditures. Therefore, the expenses are outside the scope of the Broadband Mapping project for CSLFRF. As a result, it appears $309,250 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. o For one claim reviewed at agency (085), we noted the claim was for legislative consulting services in April, May, and June 2023. Each month of service was a charge of $6,000 for a total of $18,000. No purchase order was created for the April 2023 services. Therefore, the agency completed the Agency Business Services (ABS) – Form 009 Ratification Agreement. The claim was then processed by ABS and services were paid on 9/18/23. The state incurred an obligation before encumbering funds; therefore, violating procurement policies. o For three claims reviewed at agency (452), we noted it does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine if the costs were allowable. The invoice only states "work completed" or "progress billing" for a period; therefore, we are unable to determine what services were performed. It does not appear the claim was properly reviewed by OMES-GMO. In addition, we noted the claim was reversed as a result of a correcting voucher included in the current year accounts payable to move the class funding from CF 497 (Federal CSLFRF) to CF 194 (state). Therefore, we will not question the costs. o For one claim reviewed at agency (452), we noted the claim required a ratification for payment. The state incurred an obligation before encumbering funds; therefore, violating procurement policies. In addition, we noted the claim was reversed as a result of a correcting voucher included in the current year accounts payable to move the class funding from CF 497 (Federal CSLFRF) to CF 194 (state). Therefore, we will not question the costs. Additional exceptions noted during non-subrecipient testing can be found at findings 2024-043, 2024-069, & 2024- 074. Questioned costs for non-subrecipient transactions totaled $309,250. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for cash basis testing, we randomly sampled 52 of 443 subrecipient transactions totaling $18,059,149 from a population of $49,407,554 (36.6%), and noted the following exceptions: o For two claims reviewed at agency (400), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advanced policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. The costs do not appear to be within the CSLFRF project description. Therefore, $257 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. o For one claim reviewed at agency (619), we noted it does not appear OMES-GMO would have had $10,915 of $74,472 in supporting documentation to ensure a proper review and approval. Based on our review of the missing support we obtained from the agency the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For one claim reviewed at agency (830), we noted it appears $331 of unallowable costs (incentive gift cards, travel costs and mileage for training) were reviewed and approved. o For two claims reviewed at agency (830), we noted there was no receiving documentation such as a packing slip or bill of lading to indicate the goods had been received by the intended recipient. We obtained the missing support from the agency; therefore, we will not question the costs. Questioned costs for subrecipient transactions totaled $588. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for current-year accounts payable testing, we randomly sampled 35 of 113 current-year accounts payable transactions totaling $11,282,131 from a population of $16,177,841 (69.7%), and noted the following exceptions: o For three claims reviewed at agency (025), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advance policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. It does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine the costs were allowable since the documentation provided was the same as what is available in the Statewide Accounting System. The claims in Statewide Accounting System were supported with only an OMD Design Build Invoice or professional services invoice. Therefore, it does not appear the claims were properly reviewed since there was not enough support provided by the vendor at the time of payment. Based on review of additional support and contracts requested through the vendor, the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For three claims reviewed at agency (085), it appears the expenditures were for the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (ALN 11.035 - BEAD) and Digital Equity Act (ALN 11.032 - DEA) State Planning Grant programs. We obtained the scope of work associated with the purchase order for the claims from the Statewide Accounting System and noted it appears CSLFRF funds were used to supplement BEAD and DEA planning and implementation expenditures; therefore, outside the intent or scope of the CSLFRF Broadband Mapping project. As a result, it appears $320,667 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. Additional exceptions noted during current-year accounts payable testing can be found at findings 2024-043 and 2024-074. Questioned costs for current-year accounts payable transactions totaled $320,667. Cause: The controlled advance review performed by OMES‑GMO relied on summary documentation at the time of quarterly reporting to U.S. Treasury, which does not consistently provide the detailed evidence necessary to determine allowability. Preventive procurement controls were not consistently followed, as evidenced by obligations incurred prior to encumbrance and subsequent ratifications. Also, controls to ensure expenditures were for the intended project were insufficient to prevent CSLFRF charges that supplemented other federal programs. Lastly, receiving evidence was not consistently retained or reviewed for subrecipient expenditures. Effect: The conditions noted above increase the risk that unallowable costs are charged to CSLFRF and that the State of Oklahoma is not in compliance with Uniform Guidance and U.S. Treasury program requirements. The deficiencies also elevate the risk of SEFA misstatement at an agency and state level, and potential repayment to the federal government. Recommendation: We recommend the State of Oklahoma strengthen controls for claims review procedures by requiring detailed invoices, deliverable‑level descriptions, and receiving evidence to be presented at the time of review. Further, the State of Oklahoma should strengthen controls to ensure project expenditures are within the scope of the project. The State of Oklahoma should strengthen controls to ensure that all obligations are properly encumbered before commitments are made. Also, the State of Oklahoma should implement review procedures to detect and prevent obligations from being incurred without an existing encumbrance. Subrecipient monitoring should include consistent verification of supporting documentation and perform follow‑up for any missing support. Lastly, a retrospective review should be performed for high‑risk agencies and transactions to identify, recover, or reclassify any additional unallowable charges. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls states in part: “The Non-Federal entity must; (a) establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.334 – Retention requirements for records states in part: “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient.” 2 CFR § 200.403 states in part: “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. … (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part.” 2 CFR § 200.405(a) states: “A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost: (1) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award; (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; and (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the non-Federal entity and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with the principles in this subpart.” 2 CFR § 200.317, - Procurements by States states: “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds.” Applicable State Rules and Regulations Okla. Const. art. X, § 23 - Balanced budget – Procedures states: “The state shall never create or authorize the creation of any debt or obligation, or fund or pay any deficit, against the state, or any department, institution or agency thereof, regardless of its form or the source of money from which it is to be paid.” 62 O.S. § 34.62 - Encumbrance Requirements for Payments from Funds of State states: “Encumbrance requirements for payments from funds of the state shall include the following: 1. Whenever agencies of this state enter into contracts for, or on behalf of the state for the purchase of tangible or intangible property, or for services or labor, such agreement shall be evidenced by written contracts or purchase orders, and must be transmitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services within a reasonable time from the date of the awarding of the contract or purchase order.” Management Response Contact Person: Elizabeth Base Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2026 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office disagrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: OMES-GMO’s reliance on 62 O.S. § 255.1 to label agencies “subrecipients” cannot override Federal audit classification. State-mandated grant agreements may be useful internal oversight instruments, but they do not convert intra-State transfers into Federal subawards for Single Audit purposes. Both the State’s central oversight (OMESGMO) and the state agency share responsibility for ensuring the award complies. Failures at the agency level can create noncompliance for the State’s Single Audit. The State is externally accountable to the Federal awarding agency. In Single Audit terms, they act as one non-federal entity, so compliance, controls, and reporting are consolidated across them. Relevant state agencies were contacted to obtain information and supporting documentation and were provided with an opportunity to submit additional support, clarifications, or evidence responding to the finding. Despite this outreach and the extended window for response, no further support was provided. Agency 025 It is the agency’s responsibility to perform and document a concurrent allowability review at the time of payment and to retain sufficient support in OMD’s own grant/finance records. The Uniform Guidance requires that costs be adequately documented and that the non-Federal entity maintain records that identify the source and application of funds and support its internal control over compliance. Agency 085 Supporting records indicate work that principally benefits BEAD/DEA planning and implementation. Absent a documented allocation basis that ties the charged amounts to CSLFRF mapping deliverables, the charges are not allocable to CSLFRF. Processing payments “together” for convenience does not relieve OBO of its obligation to segregate costs by funding source and retain sufficient documentation in OBO’s files that demonstrates allowability under CSLFRF. Agency 400 Based on our review of the subrecipient contract description for how the funds will be utilized, we maintain our position that the Keurig holder and portable heaters appear to be outside the scope of the project. Agency 830 The agency’s response describes programmatic rationale for $100 completion-based incentives but does not address the specific transaction tested which were four $25 gift cards purchased on October 25, 2023. The agency did not provide documentation identifying recipients, issuance dates, or purposes for the gift cards. The support provided pertains to a different period (January – March 2024) and different amounts ($100).
FINDING NO: 2024-023 (Partial Repeat 2023-059) Develop and Implement Internal Controls Over the Record Retention Process for Annual Reports STATE AGENCY: Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) FEDERAL AGENCY: United States Department of Education (USDE) ALN: 84.425 – 84.425D, 84.425U; 84.425R FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER II); American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER III); Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 – Emergency Assistance To Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: S425D210024; S425U210024 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Reporting QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition and Context: During our review and follow up on the prior year finding, we requested the supporting documentation necessary to verify information reported for several key line items on the ESSER II, ARP ESSER III, and CRRSA EANS state fiscal year (SFY) 23 Annual Reports submitted during the audit period. OSDE originally obtained this information via questionnaires sent to local educational agencies (LEAs)/nonpublic schools to collect the FTE, Student Participation data, and expenditures by category and object code. OSDE did not retain this information and was unable to provide it to our office. We were able to obtain other audit evidence sufficient to test compliance for many of the key line items, however, we were unable to test line 3.b10 Number of specific positions supported with ESSER Funds. While testing whether the data reported in the Annual Report was complete, we identified the ESSER II and CRRSA EANS expenditures were under-reported by $7,165,736 (9.86%) and $3,151,331 (55.53%) respectively. During our review of a sample of 73 out of 843 LEA subaward allocations and total expenditures reported on the ESSER Annual Reports, we identified the following issues: • For 65 of 73 subawards (89.04%), the SFY 23 allocations reported on the LEA’s Grant Management System (GMS) application did not agree with the allocation amounts reported on the ESSER II and ARP ESSER Annual Report. In addition, OSDE did not provide supporting documentation for ESSER II re-allocations preventing us from verifying whether the total allocation for these LEAs was reported accurately in the ESSER II Annual Report. The variance represents -0.27% of the total subaward amount reported. • For one of 73 subawards (1.37%), the amounts reported for ARP ESSER III were assigned to the wrong LEA. After identifying the correct LEA, we were able to confirm the reported expenditures; however, the allocation was under-reported by $2,749. The variance represents -0.57% of the subaward amount reported. • For one of 73 subawards (1.37%), we are unable to trace the ARP ESSER reported allocation and expenditures totaling $10,354,934.51 and $2,736,535.55 respectively to any corresponding ARP ESSER allocation or expenditure records in GMS. The variance represents 3.94% of the subaward amount reported and 2.87% of the ARP ESSER expenditures reported. Cause: Staff turnover and inadequate record retention policies and procedures contributed to challenges in locating and/or providing all the supporting documentation used by previous staff members to prepare the reports. Effect: OSDE is at risk for inaccurate and/or incomplete reporting on the USDE website, which prevents OSDE from demonstrating the completeness and accuracy of subaward activity, and may impair oversight and monitoring of subrecipient expenditures. Original source documents are not available for current staff or other entities required to perform audits or reviews. Recommendation: We recommend OSDE develop and implement record retention policies and procedures to ensure all records are appropriately retained, especially when staff turnover is high. Additionally, we recommend OSDE develop and implement policies and procedures and adequate training to ensure the allocations and expenditures reported on the annual report are accurate and properly supported, GMS data is reconciled to the annual report entries prior to submission, and an adequate independent review is established to verify subawards are recorded under the correct subrecipient and reported amounts trace to GMS records. The objective of the policies and procedures should be to provide an adequate understanding of the requirements, support compliance, and preserve organizational knowledge by providing clear, accessible guidance with consistent expectations of all personnel responsible for the annual report. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303(a) states in part: “The non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.334 states in part: “The recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. For awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, the recipient and subrecipient must retain records for three years from the date of submission of their quarterly or annual financial report, respectively. Records to be retained include but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Federal agencies or pass-through entities may not impose any other record retention requirements except for the following: (a) The records must be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken if any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period.” United States Department of Education website ESSER Annual Reporting states in part: “All grantees are required to report on ESSER funds received under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act; and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. Grantees must submit an annual report describing how the State and subrecipients used the awarded funds during the performance period. Similar to CARES Act Year 1 annual reporting, grantees will use the Annual Report Data Collection Tool to submit the State report.” Management Response Contact Person: Tammy Smith | Senior Director of Federal Programs Anticipated Completion Date: August 1, 2026 Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma State Department of Education agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2024-028 (Repeat 2023-047) Develop and Implement Internal Controls Over the Payroll Allocation Process STATE AGENCY: Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) FEDERAL AGENCY: United States Department of Education (USDE) ALN: 84.010; 84.425 – 84.425D & U FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Title I – Grants to Local Educational Agencies; Education stabilization Fund (ESF) - Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESER) Fund and American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: S010A230036; S425D210024, S425U210024 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition and Context: During our review and follow up on the prior year finding, we requested the time and effort data for payroll charged to the Title IA and the ESF – ESSER II and ARP ESSER III programs; current OSDE staff were not able to provide the data requested due to significant staff turnover and inadequate record retention processes. We were unable to determine the following payroll costs were properly allocated to their respective program during the audit period: • Title I: $1,138,740 (0.49%) compared to total program expenditures of $234,255,756. • ESSER II: $301,888 (1.21%) compared to total program expenditures of $24,855,831.06. • ARP ESSER III: $2,023,891 (0.46%) compared to total program expenditures of $441,707,269. The United States Department of Education (USDE) Consolidated Performance Review of Oklahoma (dated July 25, 2024) covering the SFY 23 audit period noted OSDE had used estimates to allocate payroll costs to federal awards but had not reconciled those estimates to the actual work performed on each federal program as required per 2 CFR § 200.430. The OSDE’s time and attendance system did not allow the agency to accurately charge time for employees who are paid from both State and Federal sources simultaneously. Time would be charged to the Federal funding source for the first split of the fiscal year (FY) and then charged to a state funding source for the remainder of the fiscal year. During our follow-up with OSDE, we were informed that this had not been corrected during the audit period. Cause: Technical issues with the State’s recently adopted time and attendance system did not allow OSDE to accurately charge fringe benefits for employees who are paid from both State and Federal sources and OSDE had not implemented an alternative process to accurately allocate payroll costs to federal awards. In addition, OSDE’s record retention process lacked the necessary strength and consistency to ensure retention of time and effort data. Effect: Charges to Federal awards (Title IA and ESF – ESSER II and ARP ESSER III) for salaries and wages were not based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and were not properly allocated. Inaccurate allocation methods for payroll costs increases the risk of incorrect or unallowable costs charged to Federal programs, which increases the risk of inappropriate allocation of funds between federal and state dollars. Recommendation: We recommend OSDE develop and implement system changes or an alternative process to accurately allocate payroll cost to Federal awards in compliance with the time and effort requirements of 2 CFR § 200.430. We also recommend OSDE develop and provide staff members with policies and procedures and adequate training to understand and appropriately apply 2 CFR § 200.430 federal requirements for recording time and effort data and allocating salaries and wages to Federal awards. Additionally, we recommend OSDE develop record retention policies and procedures to ensure all records are appropriately retained, especially when staff turnover is high. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.430(g)(1) states in part: “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the recipient or subrecipient, not exceeding 100 percent of compensated activities (for IHEs, this is the IBS); (iv) Encompass federally-assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient or subrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and procedures of the recipient or subrecipient; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. (vii) Budget estimates (meaning, estimates determined before the services are performed) alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards, but may be used for interim accounting purposes, provided that: (A) The system for establishing the estimates produces reasonable approximations of the activity performed; (B) Significant changes in the related work activity (as defined by the recipient's or subrecipient's written policies) are promptly identified and entered into records. Short-term (such as one or two months) fluctuations between workload categories do not need to be considered as long as the distribution of salaries and wages is reasonable over the longer term; and (C) The recipient's or subrecipient's system of internal controls includes processes to perform periodic after the- fact reviews of interim charges made to a Federal award based on budget estimates. All necessary adjustments must be made so that the final amount charged to the Federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. (viii) Because practices vary as to the activity constituting a full workload (for example, the Institutional Base Salary (IBS) for IHEs), records may reflect categories of activities expressed as a percentage distribution of total activities.” 2 CFR § 200.334 states in part: “The recipient and subrecipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. For awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, the recipient and subrecipient must retain records for three years from the date of submission of their quarterly or annual financial report, respectively. Records to be retained include but are not limited to, financial records, supporting documentation, and statistical records. Federal agencies or pass-through entities may not impose any other record retention requirements except for the following: (a) The records must be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken if any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the three year period.” 2 CFR § 200.303(a) states in part: “The non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” Management Response Contact Person: Tammy Smith | Senior Director of Federal Programs Anticipated Completion Date: January 2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma State Department of Education agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2024-014 (Repeat 2023-026) Strengthen Internal Controls Over Monitoring of Subrecipient Agreements and Expenditures STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma, Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of Treasury ALN: 21.023 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA 1 and ERA 2) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: ERA028 and ERAE0259 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Condition and Context: Oversight and management of the ERA program has been transferred at the beginning of SFY25 from the office of the Director of Budget, Policy and Gaming Compliance to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO), which has staff with several years of grant experience. OMES-GMO recently hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. The GMO implemented a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. SAI began working on the SFY24 audit of the ERA program in the fall of 2025 and the OMES GMO actively facilitated all of our audit requests (to the extent the subrecipients would provide the requested information), worked to implement corrective action for all prior year audit findings and implemented oversight and monitoring activities over the remaining unexpended ERA grant funds. However, because these activities did not start until after the SFY24 audit period, most of the prior year audit findings remained uncorrected during the SFY24 audit period resulting in repeat findings. The following issues associated with monitoring occurred prior to the current OMES GMO assuming responsibility for the oversight of the State of Oklahoma ERA program. The State of Oklahoma entered into an agreement with a non-profit entity, Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO), to administer the ERA program for the State of Oklahoma. SAI reviewed the agreement for this entity during our SFY 2021 audit and determined the agreement constituted a subrecipient relationship that would be subject to Part M Subrecipient Monitoring requirements, which was communicated to OMES in findings from the SFY 2021 audit sent to OMES 9/7/2022, The subrecipient expended $8,936,468 in Federal funds during State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2024; however, the Office of Management Enterprise Services (OMES) did not perform any subrecipient monitoring procedures; . OMES advanced program funds, totaling $343,173,664.69, to CFO during SFY 2021-SFY 2023 for which CFO did not submit any documentation to support program expenditures incurred. While OMES did obtain summary information related to rental and utility payments and housing stability payments made for reporting purposes, OMES did not request, obtain or review any support for administrative or program costs to ensure that the costs were attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households. 1 See SEFA Footnote 10 explaining why the ERA program is not a major program for 2024. However, even though the program is not material based on State of Oklahoma expenditures, we noted Material Weaknesses and Significant Deficiencies in Internal Controls, Material Noncompliance, and Questioned Costs greater than $25,000 when auditing the subrecipient expenditures. Therefore, these deficiencies will be reported under non-major program classification. Until the end of FY2025, OMES did not have a process in place to review potential fraud identified by the subrecipients and ensure that the agency’s response was adequate. OMES also did not have a process to ensure subrecipients were adequately evaluated for the types of fraud that may occur or identifying fraud risk factors applicable to the ERA program. OMES was unable to provide documentation to support that a risk assessment was performed in which each subrecipient would have been verified to have maintained an active status in the SAM.gov system, and that subrecipients were not suspended or disbarred. Cause: OMES did not timely take corrective action to address prior year findings from the SFY 21 - SFY 23 audits. OMES did not timely take corrective action to require OMES personnel to obtain, review, approve, or maintain adequate supporting documentation for all subrecipient expenditures. The required corrective action would have included transferring administration of the ERA grant to the GMO office or other personnel with the experience and expertise to administer Federal grant funds before the majority of the ERA funds were expended by the subrecipient. Additionally, OMES subrecipient monitoring process lacked the strength and consistency to ensure subrecipients established and maintained effective internal control over the Federal award to provide reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity was managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Effect: Inadequate risk assessment procedures and the lack of appropriate monitoring resulted in non-compliance with award terms and mismanagement of award funds. Furthermore, noncompliance increases the risk of Federal claw backs, which impacts state dollars. OMES decisions to delay appropriate oversight of the ERA program and to delay implementation of adequate corrective action until after the majority of grant funds have been expended by a subrecipient increases the risk that funds may not be successfully recouped from the subrecipient and greatly increases the risk that the state taxpayers will be required to pay back accumulated questioned costs of over $23 million in unallowable costs. Subrecipient agreements were not maintained for the period of performance of the Federal award. As a result, Federal funds may not have been authorized, increasing the risk of improper use of Federal funds. Recommendation: We recommend that the OMES GMO continue implementing the corrective action plan established in FY 2025 to provide proper oversight and monitoring of ERA program expenditures. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303(a) states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.332 states in part, “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, 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). … 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: … 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 written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. … f. Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F 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 § 200.501.” 2 CFR § 200.334 states in part, “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient.” 2 CFR § 200.337 states in part, “(a) Records of non-Federal entities. The Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents.” U.S Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Grantee Award Form (8) (a-b) Compliance with Applicable Law and Regulations, states in part, a. “Recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 501 and Treasury interpretive guidance regarding such requirements. Recipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and Recipient shall provide for such compliance in any agreements it enters into with other parties relating to this award. b. Federal regulations applicable to this award include, without limitation, the following: i. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may determine are inapplicable to this Award and subject to such exceptions as may be otherwise provided by Treasury. Subpart F -Audit Requirements of the Uniform Guidance, implementing the Single Audit Act, shall apply to this award… iii. Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information, 2 C.F.R. Part 170, pursuant to which the award term set forth in Appendix A to 2 C.F.R. Part 170 is hereby incorporated by reference.” The US Department of Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) FAQ #31 states in part “Grantees should require recipients of funds under ERA programs, including tenants and landlords, to commit in writing to use ERA assistance only for the intended purpose before issuing a payment. Grantees are not required to obtain documentation evidencing the use of ERA program funds by tenants and landlords. Grantees are expected to apply reasonable fraud-prevention procedures and to investigate and address potential instances of fraud or the misuse of funds that they become aware of.” Management Response Contact Person: Brandy Manek, OMES Director of Budget, Policy & Gaming Compliance Anticipated Completion Date: Completed Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) partially concurs with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor’s Response: With regard to the assertion that the State “could not take corrective action prior to the FY2024 audit began”, we respectfully disagree per the following reasons: As a recipient of the Federal ERA award, the State of Oklahoma is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of the award and to ensure the ERA award is administered in accordance with federal regulations, which includes subrecipient monitoring activities. In May of 2021, the State first received Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Audit Finding # 2020-083 related to the State’s lack of subrecipient monitoring activities and Audit Finding # 2020-081 related to the State’s failure to obtain adequate supporting documentation for subrecipient expenditures prior to paying for goods and services. The same individual served as the State’s audit contact for both the CRF award and the ERA award and, therefore, the State could have begun implementing required subrecipient monitoring activities and ensuring adequate supporting documentation was obtained from the subrecipient in May of 2021. Although the SFY 2021 Single Audit Report was not actually released until June 2023, the SFY 2021 Single Audit Report was originally scheduled for publication near the end of September of 2022, and, on September 6, 2022, SA & I provided OMES Audit Finding # 2021-081 which included the following subrecipient monitoring issues SA & I had identified as of that date: “OMES entered into agreements with two non-profit entities to administer the ERA program for the State of Oklahoma: Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) and Restore Hope Ministries (RHM). SAI reviewed the agreements for these two entities and determined that both agreements constituted a subrecipient relationship that would be subject to Part M Subrecipient Monitoring requirements. We noted that OMES failed to perform any required subrecipient monitoring activities, specifically: • OMES did not provide the subrecipients with appropriate documentation to identify the required Federal award identification information per 2 CFR section 200.331(a)(1). • OMES did not perform a risk assessment that met the compliance requirements. The risk assessment performed did not include any assessment of the risks related to the payments made by the subrecipient for rental, utility, and administrative payments, and it was not designed to identify transactions or types of payments at higher risk and then identify additional monitoring procedures to address those risks. • OMES did not perform any during the award monitoring activities with regard to the rental and utility applications, housing stability and payments approved and paid by the subrecipients, or the administrative expenditures actually incurred by the subrecipients. OMES provided subrecipients advance payments based off expected program rental and utility expenditures for the month and then paid administrative costs on a set percentage of program funds advanced. OMES did not review any supporting documentation related to actual program expenditures for rental and utility assistance, housing stability activities, or administrative expenditures actually incurred by the subrecipients. While OMES did obtain summary information related to rental and utility payments and housing stability payments made for reporting purposes, OMES did not review any actual administrative expenditures to ensure that the administrative costs were attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households. • OMES provided in excess of $750,000 in Federal funds to both CFO and RHM during SFY 2021; however, OMES did not have a process for identifying and tracking the total amount of federal funds received by subrecipients and notifying the subrecipients of the Single Audit requirements and date the audit would be due. • OMES did not obtain any financial records and supporting documents from the subrecipients that would support the actual expenditures incurred by the subrecipients.” Given the State first received similar findings for the SFY 2020 CRF award in May of 2021 (12 months before the start of SFY 2023 and 24 months before the start of SFY 2024), the State did have sufficient and timely notice to make full corrective actions prior to this SFY 2024 audit and even prior to the SFY 2023 audit. It is the position of our office that the State could have greatly reduced the amount of ERA questioned costs incurred over the past few years if the State had not waited about three and a half years (May 2021 to January 2025) from when SA & I first provided applicable findings to start implementing corrective action.
FINDING NO: 2024-024 (Repeat 2023-088; 2022-085) Strengthen Internal Controls Over Reviewing Administrative Claims STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma, Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of Treasury ALN: 21.023 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA 1 and ERA 2) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: ERA028 and ERAE0259 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed/Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $1,080,309 Condition and Context: Administrative costs charged to the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants must be attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households and must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the ERA 1 and ERA 2 Federal award and be allocable to the ERA 1 and ERA 2 Federal award. Also, any direct and indirect administrative costs in ERA1 or ERA2 must be allocated by the grantee to either the provision of financial assistance or the provision of housing stability services. To the extent administrative costs are not readily allocable to the provision of financial assistance or the provision of housing stability services, the grantee may assume an allocation of the relevant costs of 90 percent to financial assistance and 10 percent to housing stability services. In order to determine if the subrecipient Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO)/Communities Cares Partners (CCP), only charged administrative costs to the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants in compliance with the grant requirements described above, we performed the following procedures: Analysis of Program Expenditures and Administrative Cost Charged over the Period of Performance: We obtained the SFY24 transaction data for the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grants from CFO/CCP and identified the transactions coded to the ERA 1 and ERA 2 grant by 1) awardee (i.e., State of Oklahoma, Cleveland County, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City); and 2) type of expenditure (i.e., rent and utility assistance payments, rent and utility assistance administrative expenditures, housing stability payments, housing stability administrative expenditures). We noted that the subrecipient had zero expenditures during SFY24 for actual rent and utility assistance, however, $1,845,942 (ERA 2) and $137 (ERA 1) in rent and utility assistance administrative costs were charged to the State of Oklahoma ERA awards. We also noted that the subrecipient had $6,908,183 (ERA 2) in housing stability payments during SFY24 and charged $155,252 in housing stability administrative expenditures to the State of Oklahoma ERA2 award. We also reviewed a timeline provided by CFO/CCP that outlined the activities the subrecipient was engaged in related to the ERA awards over the period of performance. Of note, CFO/CCP stopped accepting rent and utility assistance applications at the end of August 2022 and, by the end of December 2022, CFO/CCP stopped paying virtually all rent and utility assistance applicants and marked all remaining qualified applications in the Neighborly system as Unpaid - Funds Exhausted with the exception of a few Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) applications that were processed through the end of June, 2023. In December of 2022, CFO/CCP closed social media channels and platforms and disbanded the Qualifications Team, Client Relations Team, Communications Team, and Processing Team with several contractors held over to continue to address remaining issues. In January of 2023, CFO/CCP created a Clean-up Team to identify and resolve remaining issues and organize files to ensure any staff at the Communities Foundation of Oklahoma could quickly find information they may need upon the closure of CCP. CFO/CCP also began funding 13 ERA-2 Housing Stability Partners. The following table shows the percentage of administrative expenditures (not including the 16 million in unallowable management fees) for the State of Oklahoma ERA 1 and ERA 2 programs administered by CFO/CCP from SFY 21 to SFY 24. CCP/CFO Administrative Expenditures for the State of Oklahoma ERA 1 and ERA 2 Programs Compared to Rent & Utility (RU) Assistance Payments and Housing Stability Expenditures SFY23 ERA 1 & ERA 2 SFY 21 & SFY 22 As of December 31, 2022 As of June 30, 2023 SFY 24 RU Assistance Payments $188,753,605.17 $72,779,085.51 $2,030,717.31 -$334,805.10 RU Assistance Admin Payments $9,113,762.73 $7,099,473.23 $1,524,364.43 $1,846,079.25 Admin % of Assistance Payments 4.83% 9.75% 75.07% -551.39% Housing Stability Payments $17,773,884.27 $1,906,561.94 $4,551,171.62 $6,908,182.87 Housing Stability Admin Payments $274,224.14 $935,236.26 $0.00 $155,252.45 Admin % of Assistance Payments 1.54% 49.05% 0.00% 2.25% Total RU Assistance & HS Payments $206,527,489.44 $74,685,647.45 $6,581,888.93 $6,573,377.77 Total RU Assistance & HS Admin Payments $9,387,986.87 $8,034,709.49 $1,524,364.43 $2,001,331.70 Total Admin % of Program Expenses 4.55% 10.76% 23.16% 30.45% Of note, the 10 % and 15% limit means that administrative costs must not exceed these limits, however, the costs still have to be attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households and must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the ERA 1 and ERA 2 Federal award and be allocable to the ERA 1 and ERA 2 Federal award. We identified several issues with CFO/CCP in relation to the amount of administrative expenditures charged to the federal awards in comparison to the actual activities that were performed and/or would have been reasonable and necessary to perform given the type of program expenditures the subrecipient was incurring at the time. Based on our analysis, it appears that CFO/CCP significant increase in administrative costs coincided with the increase to a 15% administrative limit for the ERA 2 grant award instead of the 10% limit under the ERA 1 grant award. We noted that, during this period, (mainly SFY 2023) CFO/CCP made large increases to contractor rates, paid out unallowable bonus payments of approximately 38% of the total contractor payroll (an over 470% increase over the prior period) and increased other administrative costs as well. Almost all rent and utility assistance applications were processed and paid as of the end of December 2022. Administrative costs relevant to processing and paying rent and utility assistance applications far exceed any costs relevant to administering the housing stability activities related to the relatively small number of HS contracts paid in SFY23 and SFY24; however, CFO/CCP’s administrative costs were rising in comparison to the assistance payments. Also, CFO/CCP had 6 months in SFY23 in which very little assistance applications were processed and paid, yet CFO/CCP charged over $500,000 more in SFY24 for admin costs than it did during the last 6 months of SFY23 when the majority of the closeout activities would have been completed. We also noted that CFO/CCP stopped funding qualified applications when they had expended the required 80% of the ERA I award and 75% of the ERA 2 award and not because the funds available to the subrecipient to pay the assistance applications were exhausted. At that time, CFO/CCP had already retained millions in unallowable management fees, earned millions in interest as a result of OMES advancing ERA funds far in advance of when the funds were being expended, and had set aside millions in ERA funds they intended to use for future administrative costs and management fees even though the amount retained was far in excess of what was actually needed to close out the program and administer the remaining housing stability contracts. While performing an analysis on FY21-FY24 payroll expenditures from the ERA program for the subrecipient Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO)/Communities Cares Partners (CCP), we obtained the ERA data and noted the following related to payroll and bonus payments for each year: Bonuses Payroll Total Bonus % FY21 131,500 2,337,034 2,468,534 5.63% FY22 546,826 8,185,607 8,732,433 6.68% FY23 2,407,500 6,318,905 8,726,405 38.10% FY24 139,500 1,182,889 1,322,389 11.79% 3,225,326 18,024,434 21,249,760 17.89% The bonus payments are 17.89% of total payroll expenditures and 11.79% of the total for FY24. We were informed that CFO/CCP management arbitrarily distributed bonuses that were not based on specific criteria, did not adhere to CCP Bonus Policies and Procedures, and were approved after the payments were made. It appears that all bonus payments did not adhere to 2 CFR 200.430 and are unallowable. For FY24, this results in $113,963 (State of Oklahoma federal share) of questioned costs. (Note: $113,963 represents 81.6% of total bonuses of $139,500 for FY24, which is the percentage of State of Oklahoma admin to total admin which includes all other jurisdictions of ERA program funds). In addition, we tested a sample of 48 of 980 (4.90%) payroll administrative expenditures, and identified: • 48 of 48 (100%) claims are not supported with timesheets to reflect the distribution of the employee’s wages among specific activities or cost objectives for the Federal award and do not accurately reflect the work performed specifically for the State of Oklahoma ERA award. CFO also administers the ERA awards for Oklahoma County, The City of Oklahoma and Cleveland County. Also, CFO created four different non-profits internally (Sidexside, Shelterwell, Afghan Legal Network and Latitude Legal) with significant crossover in CCP staff and resources. In addition, CCP appears to have significant private funding attributed to the CCP division, but there is no indication of what projects this money is being used for or which staff members worked on privately funded projects. This results in $56,972.74 in questioned costs (excluding bonus payments). • Nine of 48 (18.75%) claims included unallowable bonus payments totaling $85,000; however, those questioned costs are already included in the SFY24 total amount of $139,500 above. Because CCP confirmed that no time and effort distribution records were kept for the State of Oklahoma ERA programs, and the timesheets did not include the number of hours worked by program, all payroll expenditures are unsupported; therefore, all payroll expenditures are questioned, totaling $966,346 (State of Oklahoma federal share). (Note: $966,346 represents 81.6% of total payroll of $1,182,889 for FY24, which is the percentage of State of Oklahoma admin to total admin which includes all other jurisdictions of ERA program funds) We also observed through CCP’s timeline that the application portal was closed as of August 31, 2022, and, as of December 2022, CCP disbanded the following teams Qualifications, Client Relations, Communications, and Processing; however, we noted that five employees in these divisions were still being paid. In addition, two employees from the fraud department were paid over $100,000 each; however, CCP has been unable to provide a list of applicants, landlords, or payments that were sent to this department for review. Cause: OMES did not timely take corrective action to address prior year findings from the SFY 21 to SFY 23 audits. OMES did not timely take corrective action to require OMES personnel to obtain, review, approve, or maintain adequate supporting documentation for housing stability program costs and housing stability administrative costs. The required corrective action would have included transferring administration of the ERA grant to the GMO office or other personnel with the experience and expertise to administer Federal grant funds before the majority of the ERA funds were expended by the subrecipient. OMES did not establish and maintain effective internal control over its claims process to provide reasonable assurance the Federal award was administered in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Additionally, OMES’s subrecipient monitoring process lacked the strength and consistency to ensure subrecipients established and maintained effective internal control over the Federal award to provide reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity was managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Effect: Inadequate review of claims and approving claims without proper supporting documentation increases the risk of unallowable expenses resulting in noncompliance. Furthermore, noncompliance increases the risk of Federal claw backs, which impacts state dollars. Payroll costs totaling $966,346 were not supported by time distribution records. Unallowable bonus payments of $113,963, were charged to the ERA program as payroll administrative expenditures, which could have been used toward Oklahoma applicants in need of ERA funding. OMES’s decision to delay proper oversight of the ERA program and to postpone needed corrective actions until after the majority of grant funds had been expended by a subrecipient, significantly increases the risk that excess funds cannot be recovered. This also greatly increases the risk that the state taxpayers will have to repay more than $23 million in unallowable costs. Recommendation: SAI acknowledges that beginning in FY25, oversight of the ERA program was transferred to the Grants Management Office (GMO). The GMO has two staff members on the team with 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. The GMO entered into a subrecipient agreement that does not expire to monitor CFO’s duties and processes. GMO also required CFO to return the remaining ERA 2 program funds to ensure that proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. The GMO has implemented a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and to assist in the detection of fraud. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients; therefore, we recommend that the OMES GMO continue implementing the corrective action plan established in FY 2025 to provide proper oversight and monitoring of ERA program expenditures. Criteria: U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Grantee Award Form (8) (a-b) Compliance with Applicable Law and Regulations, states in part, “a. Recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 501 and Treasury interpretive guidance regarding such requirements. Recipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and Recipient shall provide for such compliance in any agreements it enters into with other parties relating to this award. b. Federal regulations applicable to this award include, without limitation, the following: i. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may determine are inapplicable to this Award and subject to such exceptions as may be otherwise provided by Treasury.” 2 CFR § 200.303(a) – Internal Controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” For ERA 1, the Consolidated Appropriations Act § Section 501 (c)(5) Use of Funds - Administrative Costs states in part, “A. IN GENERAL.- Not more than 10 percent of the amount paid to an eligible grantee under this section may be used for administrative costs attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services under paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, including for data collection and reporting requirements related to such funds. B. No OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.- Amounts paid under this section shall not be used for any administrative costs other than to the extent allowed under subparagraph (A)” For ERA 2, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 § Section 3201(C) Administrative Costs states, “Not more than 15 percent of the total amount paid to an eligible grantee under this section may be used for administrative costs attributable to providing financial assistance, housing stability services, and other affordable rental housing and eviction prevention activities, including for data collection and reporting requirements related to such funds.” 2 CFR § 200.334 – Retention requirements for records state in part, “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient.” 2 CFR § 200.337 – Access to records states in part, “(a) Records of non-Federal entities. The Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents.” 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles.” 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services states in part, “(f) Incentive compensation. Incentive compensation to employees based on cost reduction, efficient performance, suggestion awards, or safety awards is allowable to the extent that the overall compensation is determined to be reasonable and such costs are paid or accrued according to an agreement entered into in good faith between the recipient or subrecipient and the employees before the services were rendered, or according to an established plan followed by the recipient or subrecipient so consistently as to imply, in effect, an agreement to make such payment. (g) (i and iv) Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses. (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (iv) Encompass federally-assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient or subrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy.” For ERA 1, the Consolidated Appropriations Act § Section 501 (c)(5) Use of Funds (c) USE OF FUNDS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—"An eligible grantee shall only use the funds provided from a payment made under this section to provide financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households. (2) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not less than 90 percent of the funds received by an eligible grantee from a payment made under this section shall be used to provide financial assistance to eligible households, including the payment of (i) rent; (ii) rental arrears; (iii) utilities and home energy costs; (iv) utilities and home energy costs arrears; and (v) other expenses related to housing incurred due, directly or indirectly, to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, as defined by the Secretary.” For ERA 2, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 § Section 3201(C) Administrative Costs states, (D) OTHER AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND EVICTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.-“An eligible grantee may use any funds from payments made under this section that are unobligated on October 1, 2022, for purposes in addition to those specified in this paragraph, provided that – (i) such other purposes are affordable rental housing and eviction prevention purposes, as defined by the Secretary, serving very low-income families (as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b))); and (ii) prior to obligating any funds for such purposes, the eligible grantee has obligated not less than 75 percent of the total funds allocated to such eligible grantee in accordance with this section.” Management Response Contact Person: Brandy Manek, OMES Director of Budget, Policy and Gaming Compliance Anticipated Completion Date: Completed Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) concurs with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor’s Response: With regard to the assertion that the State did not have “sufficient and timely notice to make full corrective actions prior to this FY2024 audit, we respectfully disagree per the following reasons: As a recipient of the Federal ERA award, the State of Oklahoma is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of the award and to ensure the ERA award is administered in accordance with federal regulations, which includes the cost principles per 2 CFR § 200 included in the ‘Criteria’ section of this finding. In May of 2021, the State first received Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) Audit Finding # 2020-083 related to the State’s lack of subrecipient monitoring activities and Audit Finding # 2020-081 related to the State’s failure to obtain adequate supporting documentation for subrecipient expenditures prior to paying for goods and services. The same individual served as the State’s audit contact for both the CRF award and the ERA award and, therefore, the State could have begun implementing required subrecipient monitoring activities and ensuring adequate supporting documentation was obtained from the subrecipient in May of 2021. Although the SFY 2021 Single Audit Report was not actually released until June 2023, the SFY 2021 Single Audit Report was originally scheduled for publication near the end of September of 2022, and, on September 6, 2022, SA & I provided OMES Audit Finding # 2021-081 and Audit Finding # 2021-080 which included the following issues applicable to this finding which SA & I had identified as of that date: From Audit Finding # 2021-081: “OMES entered into agreements with two non-profit entities to administer the ERA program for the State of Oklahoma: Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) and Restore Hope Ministries (RHM). SAI reviewed the agreements for these two entities and determined that both agreements constituted a subrecipient relationship that would be subject to Part M Subrecipient Monitoring requirements. We noted that OMES failed to perform any required subrecipient monitoring activities, specifically: • OMES did not perform any during the award monitoring activities with regard to the rental and utility applications, housing stability and payments approved and paid by the subrecipients, or the administrative expenditures actually incurred by the subrecipients. OMES provided subrecipients advance payments based off expected program rental and utility expenditures for the month and then paid administrative costs on a set percentage of program funds advanced. OMES did not review any supporting documentation related to actual program expenditures for rental and utility assistance, housing stability activities, or administrative expenditures actually incurred by the subrecipients. While OMES did obtain summary information related to rental and utility payments and housing stability payments made for reporting purposes, OMES did not review any actual administrative expenditures to ensure that the administrative costs were attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services to eligible households. • OMES did not obtain any financial records and supporting documents from the subrecipients that would support the actual expenditures incurred by the subrecipients.” From Audit Finding # 2021-080: “While documenting controls over subrecipient program and administrative expenditures for the ERA program, we noted that OMES did not review any supporting documentation related to actual program expenditures for rental and utility assistance or housing stability activities or, administrative expenditures actually incurred by the subrecipients and, did not require that subrecipients submit supporting documentation for actual program and administrative expenditures incurred.” “While reviewing ERA administrative expenditures, we noted the following: One subrecipient charged the ERA grant $2,000,000 in unallowable management fees that were not attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services under the ERA program. We questioned $1,563,028 of these costs that were allocated to the State of Oklahoma ERA1 grant.” Given the State first received similar findings for the SFY 2020 CRF award in May of 2021 (12 months before the start of SFY 2023 and 24 months before the start of SFY 2024), the State did have sufficient and timely notice to make full corrective actions prior to this SFY 2024 audit and even prior to the SFY 2023 audit. It is the position of our office that the State could have greatly reduced the amount of ERA questioned costs incurred over the past few years if the State had not waited about three and a half years (May 2021 to January 2025) from when SA & I first provided applicable findings to start implementing corrective action.
FINDING NO: 2024-038 (Repeat 2023-089) Develop and Implement Internal Controls Over Administrative Expenditures STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma, Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of Treasury ALN: 21.023 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: ERAE0259 FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles QUESTIONED COSTS: $363,787 Condition and Context: During the period of March 2021 through the end of SFY2024 (including audit periods SFY21 to SFY24), the OMES Director of Budget, Policy and Gaming Compliance (OMES/BPGC) was responsible for administering the State of Oklahoma ERA awards, entering into agreements with subrecipients to carry out performance of the awards, providing oversight for all subrecipient activities and expenditures including ensuring subrecipients expended the awards in compliance with award requirements, and ensuring subrecipients complied with required Federal Single Audit requirements and implemented appropriate corrective action timely for all Single Audit Findings. The issues documented in this finding are all issues that were included in prior year findings first sent to OMES starting September 7, 2022. In addition, during prior year audits, we were informed that transactions identified as ‘multi jurisdiction’ indicated the expense was attributable to State, County, and City ERA funds and the expense was allocated based on the percent of each jurisdiction’s expenditures to total program expenditures. We have only included questioned costs in this finding that are applicable to the State of Oklahoma’s Federal share of ERA funds. At the start of SFY2025, oversight and management of the ERA program was transferred from the office of the Director of Budget, Policy and Gaming Compliance to the OMES Grant Management Office (OMES-GMO), which has staff with several years of grant experience. At the beginning of SFY2025, OMES-GMO hired additional staff, and the two staff members dedicated to the management of the ERA program have 20+ years of combined federal grant specific experience. The GMO implemented a multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that includes routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. SAI began working on the current audit in late fall of 2025 and the OMES GMO actively facilitated our audit requests to the extent the subrecipients would provide the requested information, worked to implement corrective action for all prior year audit findings and implemented oversight and monitoring activities over the remaining unexpended ERA grant funds and began reviewing the SFY25 grant funds already expended. Because these activities did not start until after the audit period, most of the prior year audit findings remained uncorrected during the audit period resulting in repeat findings. The following issues associated with administrative expenditures occurred prior to the current OMES GMO assuming responsibility for the oversight of the State of Oklahoma ERA program. While reviewing administrative expenditure data, we identified unallowable administrative costs (management fees) totaling $273,596 retained by the subrecipient and charged to the ERA 2 grant that were not attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services. The management fees the subrecipient charged to the grant appear to be an arbitrary amount retained by Communities Foundation of Oklahoma (CFO) instead of actual administrative costs. During testwork of subrecipient administrative expenditures for the ERA 2 grant, we determined OMES claims processes (applicable to the SFY24 period) did not require subrecipients to submit supporting documentation for the expenditures charged to the program. Furthermore, we determined that one of the subrecipients, CFO, lacked sufficient internal controls over administrative expenditures to ensure only allowable costs and activities were charged to the ERA 2 grant. During our review of a sample of 27 out of 143 (18.88%) non-payroll and non-credit card administrative expenditures applicable to ERA 2 services for rent and utility assistance totaling $650,722, we identified the following issues: • For one of 27 (3.7%) expenditures, the subrecipient was unable to provide an updated contract covering the time of the expenditure, totaling $47,850. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $40,763. • One of 27 (3.7%) expenditures had an invoice that was not itemized for specific costs or services provided. Per the contract, the services included lobbying activities for Oklahoma legislation totaling $10,000.00, which is unrelated to the administration of the ERA program and unallowable. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $8,519. • One of 27 (3.7%) expenditures had an invoice to purchase food, totaling $67. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $57. • Five of 27 (18.52%) expenditures had an invoice that included services applicable to grants other than the State of Oklahoma ERA program, totaling $5,204. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $4,434. • Eight of 27 (29.63%) expenditures were for housing stability services that were inappropriately labeled as “Rental Relief Admin” in the transaction data. • Two of 27 (7.41%) expenditures were unrelated to ERA. The subrecipient refunded the amount after SAI’s determination in a prior year audit; and therefore, will not result in questioned costs in FY24. • 13 of 27 (48.15%) expenditures were classified as rent relief admin; however, only 3.75% of total expenditures during SFY24 were rent relief program expenditures that mostly consisted of refunds. Therefore, it appears administrative expenditures were supporting housing stability services more than rent relief activities, and the amount charged to rent relief admin is both misleading and excessive. We also tested a sample of 37 of 43 (86.05%) non-payroll and non-credit card administrative expenditures applicable to ERA 2 housing stability services totaling $154,064.93 and identified: • For three of 37 expenditures (8.11%), the expenditure was for unallowable indirect costs charged to an internally created non-profit, totaling $390. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $318. • For seven of 37 expenditures (18.92%), the expenditure was for activities not related to housing stability and unallowable indirect costs, totaling $43,125. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $35,147. We tested all 12-credit card administrative expenditures for CFO expenditures applicable to ERA 2 services for rent and utility assistance, totaling $6,861.86, and identified six of 12 (50%) payments included at least one expenditure for unallowable costs, totaling $1,118. The State of Oklahoma federal share of this is $953. Note: Issues noted with the payroll related administrative expenditures are included in Audit Finding # 2024-024. Cause: OMES did not timely take corrective action to address unallowable management fees first identified in prior year findings from the SFY 2021 audit sent to OMES 9/7/2022, and other types of unallowable administrative expenditures first identified in findings from the SFY 2022 audit sent to OMES in January of 2024. OMES did not timely take corrective action to require OMES personnel to obtain, review, approve, or maintain adequate supporting documentation for administrative costs. The required corrective action would have included transferring administration of the ERA grant to the GMO office or other personnel with the experience and expertise to administer Federal grant funds before the majority of the ERA funds were expended by the subrecipient. OMES did not establish and maintain effective internal control over its claims process that provides reasonable assurance the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Additionally, OMES subrecipient monitoring process lacked the strength and consistency to ensure subrecipients established and maintained effective internal control over the Federal award to provide reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity was managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Effect: Inadequate review of claims with proper supporting documentation increases the risk of unallowable expenses resulting in noncompliance. Furthermore, noncompliance increases the risk of Federal claw backs, which impacts state dollars. Noncompliance during the audit period resulted in $363,787 questioned costs for the ERA program, and, $407,154 in projected questioned costs for non-payroll rent and utility assistance administrative expenditures which is 73.45% of the applicable population. OMES decisions to delay appropriate oversight of the ERA program and to delay implementation of adequate corrective action until after the majority of grant funds have been expended by a subrecipient increases the risk that funds may not be successfully recouped from the subrecipient and greatly increases the risk that the state taxpayers will be required to pay back accumulated questioned costs of over $23 million in unallowable costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the OMES GMO continue implementing the corrective action plan established in state fiscal year 2025 to provide proper oversight and monitoring of ERA program expenditures which includes: • Oversight and management of the ERA program by staff with adequate experience and expertise of the grant requirements. • A multi-level system of internal controls for grant management and oversight that consists of routine monitoring, desk review, and site visits for all projects and associated project/administrative expenditures to ensure allowability, accuracy, and assist in the detection of fraud. For example, OMES-GMO’s process for disbursing funds to a subrecipient requires a written request from the subrecipient with supporting documentation, then OMES-GMO assigns a staff lead and secondary grant analyst to perform a primary and secondary review for compliance and to require additional supporting documentation if needed to approve the request. Once those reviews are completed and approved by the OMES-GMO staff, the Director of the OMES-GMO reviews and approves the request before it is sent to the OMES Finance Division. The OMES Finance Division then verifies the calculated amount(s) before completing the disbursement to the subrecipient. These internal control processes and policies have been implemented for the management and oversight of the ERA Program and provide a multi-layer review to prevent fraud and risk factors applicable to the ERA program. Additionally, the OMES-GMO staff assigned to the ERA program have the training and knowledge to ensure compliance with the Federal grant requirements. • Monthly, bi-weekly or weekly meetings, depending on the level of risk, with each subrecipient to monitor the progress of projects and address any issues or changes that might impact the project. For the ERA Program, OMES-GMO conducts bi-weekly monitoring meetings with CFO and is currently reviewing documentation provided by CFO to ensure all current ERA projects are eligible under the ERA guidelines and that CFO is exercising the proper oversight over their subrecipients. • OMES-GMO required the return of the remaining ERA2 Program funds from CFO to ensure proper oversight and review of ERA expenditures is performed. We recommend continuing with current ERA monitoring steps and internal controls, and work with CFO to ensure ERA program funds are spent in accordance with ERA program guidelines and state and federal regulations. Criteria: U.S Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Grantee Award Form (8) (a-b) Compliance with Applicable Law and Regulations, states in part, “a. Recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 501 and Treasury interpretive guidance regarding such requirements. Recipient also agrees to comply with all other applicable federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders, and Recipient shall provide for such compliance in any agreements it enters into with other parties relating to this award. b. Federal regulations applicable to this award include, without limitation, the following: i. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. Part 200, other than such provisions as Treasury may determine are inapplicable to this Award and subject to such exceptions as may be otherwise provided by Treasury.” 2 CFR § 200.303(a) states in part: “The Non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” The Consolidated Appropriations Act § Section 501 (c)(5) Use of Funds - Administrative Costs states in part: “A. IN GENERAL.- Not more than 10 percent of the amount paid to an eligible grantee under this section may be used for administrative costs attributable to providing financial assistance and housing stability services under paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, including for data collection and reporting requirements related to such funds. B. No OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.- Amounts paid under this section shall not be used for any administrative costs other than to the extent allowed under subparagraph (A)” 2 CFR § 200.334 – Retention requirements for records state in part: “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient.” 2 CFR § 200.337 Access to records states in part: “(a) Records of non-Federal entities. The Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents.” 74 O.S. § 85.7 - Competitive Bid Procedures states in part:” A. Except as otherwise provided by the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act, or associated rules: … 6. Competitive bidding requirements of this section shall not be required for the following: … f. any acquisition of a service which the Office of Management and Enterprise Services has approved as qualifying for a fixed and uniform rate, subject to the following: (2) fixed and uniform rate contracts authorized by this subsection shall be limited to contracts for those services furnished to persons directly benefiting from such services and shall not be used by a state agency to employ consultants or to make other acquisitions.” 2 CFR § 200.450 – Lobbying states in part: “The following restrictions apply to nonprofit organizations and IHEs: (C)(1)(iii)(A-B) The introduction of Federal or State legislation; the enactment or modification of any pending Federal or State legislation through communication with any member or employee of the Congress or State legislature (including efforts to influence State or local officials to engage in similar lobbying activity); (C)(1)(iv) Legislative liaison activities, including attendance at legislative sessions or committee hearings, gathering information regarding legislation, and analyzing the effect of legislation, when such activities are carried on in support of or in knowing preparation for an effort to engage in unallowable lobbying.” Management Response Contact Person: Brandy Manek, OMES Director of Budget, Policy and Gaming Compliance Anticipated Completion Date: Completed Corrective Action Planned: The Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) concurs with the finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor’s Response: See the auditor response located in finding #2024-024.
Criteria - Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.334(a) states that The records must be retained until all litigation, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved and final action taken if any litigation, claim, or audit is started before the expiration of the three-year period.Condition – Personnel records were not properly retained. Effect – Key controls were missing personnel data records. Cause – Closing of HVRP federal program Recommendation – Management should prepare a quality control assessment to ensure data retention of personnel records is properly retained in line with Uniform guidance requirements.
2024-006 - Deficiencies in Disbursement Procedures and Documentation Retention Finding Type: Material noncompliance Federal Program: 10.760 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition/Finding: During testing of disbursements charged to federal programs, we noted that supporting documentation was in some cases incomplete, missing, or insufficient to verify allowability and compliance with federal requirements. In addition, approval of certain disbursements was not clearly documented or retained in a manner consistent with federal requirements. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.303, non-federal entities must establish internal controls that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards. Per 2 CFR §200.403(g), costs must be adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards. Further, 2 CFR §200.334 requires the retention of records sufficient to support federal expenditures for a period prescribed by the regulation. Cause: The Village has not established or consistently followed formal procedures for the review, approval, and retention of documentation for federal disbursements. Documentation practices vary and are not systematically reviewed for completeness. Effect: The absence of proper documentation or evidence of approval impairs the Village’s ability to demonstrate compliance with federal cost principles. This represents noncompliance with federal documentation and cost allowability requirements that is material in relation to the applicable compliance requirements. Recommendation: We recommend the Village implement formal procedures to ensure that all federal disbursements are properly documented and approved prior to payment, and that supporting records are retained in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements. Periodic internal review of documentation completeness should also be incorporated as part of the control process. View of Responsible Officials: Management’s response and planned corrective action can be found in the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2023-003: Reporting Federal Program: Economic Adjustment Assistance [AL #11.307]. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.334, financial records, supports documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. Condition: The Bureau was unable to provide documentation that their annual report was submitted to the Kentucky Department of Tourism. As such, the report was unable to be tested. Cause: Controls were not in place to ensure records were maintained in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect: The reporting requirements were unable to be tested. Questioned Costs: None Context: This is not a systemic problem. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Bureau maintain all records related to Federal awards, including making copies of reports submitted, to ensure compliance with the award. Management Response: The management team received limited guidance on the testing, reporting, and retention requirements of federal funds. In the future, copies of all reports and documentation of timely submission will be maintained by the management team.