Findings Citing § 200.337

FINDING 2025-008 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Condition of Records Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U, 84.425W Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013, S425W210015 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Equipment and Real Property Management; Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking; Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements 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 2023-007 and 2023-009 over the compliance requirements Equipment and Real Property Management and Special Tests and Provisions - Wage Rate Requirements, respectively. Condition and Context The School Corporation received reimbursements totaling $30,316,384 from the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) federal awards during the audit period. The reimbursements were associated with three separate federal awards, each of which was required to be accounted for in a separate fund within the School Corporation's financial management system. Expenditures were to be made in accordance with the approved grant applications and budgets, with reimbursement requests subsequently submitted to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). The School Corporation was responsible for maintaining detailed disbursement ledgers for each grant fund to support the amounts claimed for reimbursement. As is typical with reimbursement-based grants, the ending cash and investment balances of each grant fund were expected to reflect overdrawn balances until the subsequent reimbursements were received from the IDOE. The $30,316,384 received in ESF funds during the audit period was based on 28 reimbursement requests for expenditures incurred between June 1, 2023 through December 13, 2024. Based on our review of grant fund records and inquiry with management, we identified the following deficiencies:  The detailed disbursement ledger for the period of June 1, 2023 through December 13, 2024, excluding June 2024 for Grant #S425U210013 as no reimbursement request was submitted, reflected total expenditures of $23,051,334. This resulted in $7,265,050 in reimbursements that were not adequately supported by detailed records. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 33 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)  A review of the submitted reimbursement requests indicated that $1,069,865 was reimbursed for indirect costs; however, a disbursement from the grant funds to other operating funds was not recorded within the School Corporations records.  Of the 28 reimbursement requests submitted, only 5 were supported by detailed disbursement ledgers that agreed with the dates and amounts claimed. The remaining 23 reimbursement requests could not be directly reconciled to the supporting documentation provided. Upon further inquiry with management, additional records were provided; however, these records lacked sufficient detail, such as fund number, fund name, check numbers, dates, and vendor names to be useable.  Reimbursements received were not posted to each grant fund properly. This resulted in the ARP EESER III fund receipts to be understated by $4,297,935 and the ESSER II and GEER PD funds receipts to be overstated by $4,174,376 and $123,560, respectively.  Since this is a reimbursement-based grant, the ending cash and investment balances of each grant fund should either be zero or overdrawn while awaiting reimbursement. However, as of June 30, 2025, the ESSER II and Geer PD funds reported positive cash and investment balances of $5,047,932 and $404,653, respectively. Due to the deficiencies noted above, the School Corporation was unable to provide sufficient appropriate evidence for us to determine populations, and, therefore, audit and base an opinion on the compliance requirements subject to audit that were determined to have a direct and material effect on the program. As a result, the $30,316,384 in reimbursements received during the audit period were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were material and systemic 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 200.302 states in part: "(a) . . . the other non-Federal entity's 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 general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also § 200.450. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 34 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see §§ 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. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (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. . . . (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 assets. The non- Federal entity must adequately safeguard all assets and ensure that 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 of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award." 2 CFR 200.1 states in part: ". . . Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor because of an audit finding: (1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute, regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for funds used to match Federal funds; (2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by adequate documentation; or (3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances. (4) Questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed to be improper as defined in OMB Circular A-123 appendix C. (See also the definition of Improper payment in this section)." 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 35 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 200.313(d) states in part: ". . . (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." 29 CFR 5.5 states in part: "(a) Required contract clauses. The Agency head will cause or require the contracting officer to require the contracting officer to [sic] insert in full, or (for contracts covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1)) by reference, in any contract in excess of $2,000 which is entered into for the actual construction, alteration and/or repair, including painting and decorating, of a public building or public work, or building or work financed in whole or in part from Federal funds or in accordance with guarantees of a Federal agency or financed from funds obtained by pledge of any contract of a Federal agency to make a loan, grant or annual contribution (except where a different meaning is expressly indicated), and which is subject to the labor standards provisions of any of the laws referenced by § 5.1, the following clauses . . . (1) Minimum wages— (i) Wage rates and fringe benefits. All laborers and mechanics employed or working upon the site of the work (or otherwise working in construction or development of the project under a development statute), will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once a week, and without subsequent deduction or rebate on any account (except such payroll deductions as are permitted by regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor under the Copeland Act (29 CFR part 3)), the full amount of basic hourly wages and bona fide fringe benefits (or cash equivalents thereof) due at time of payment computed at rates not less than those contained in the wage determination of the Secretary of Labor which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, regardless of any contractual relationship which may be alleged to exist between the contractor and such laborers and mechanics. . . . (3) Records and certified payrolls— (ii) Certified payroll requirements— INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 36 SCHOOL CITY OF EAST CHICAGO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (A) Frequency and method of submission. The contractor or subcontractor must submit weekly, for each week in which any DBA- or Related Acts-covered work is performed, certified payrolls to the [write in name of appropriate Federal agency] if the agency is a party to the contract, but if the agency is not such a party, the contractor will submit the certified payrolls to the applicant, sponsor, owner, or other entity, as the case may be, that maintains such records, for transmission to the [write in name of agency]. . . ." 2 CFR 200 Appendix II to Part 200 states in part: "In addition to other provisions required by the Federal agency or non-Federal entity; all contracts made by the non-Federal entity under the Federal award must contain provisions covering the following, as applicable. . . . (D) Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 3141-3148). When required by Federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by non- Federal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR Part 5, 'Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction'). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay wages not less than once a week. . . ." Cause The School Corporation experienced turnover in key personnel over the federal program, which contributed to the lack of appropriate supporting records. A proper system of internal controls was not designed to ensure continuity of policies, procedures, and records when personnel transitions occurred. Effect Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements could result in the repayment of federal funds. Questioned Costs We identified $30,316,384 in known questioned costs as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management develop policies and procedures to ensure continuity of school records during a personnel change and that all reimbursement requests are properly supported by detail records. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Economic Development Cluster - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of Commerce Federal Program: Economic Adjustment Assistance Assistance Listings Number: 11.307 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 06-79-06420 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective system of internal controls was not in place at the City in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the reporting compliance requirement. The grant agreement for the City's construction project states that the City is to submit a Federal Financial Report (SF-425) on a semi-annual basis. The SF-425 report includes, among other line items: cash receipts, cash disbursements, cash on hand, total federal funds authorized, and total recipient share required. Both of the submitted SF-425 reports were tested. Additionally, the City was required to submit progress reports on a quarterly basis. Two of the quarterly reports were selected for testing. Both the SF-425 reports and the quarterly progress reports were prepared and submitted by one employee of the City. Evidence of an established internal control over the reports tested was not available for audit. The data submitted in the SF-425 report submitted by the City for the reporting period ending on September 30, 2024, contained the following errors:  Cash receipts were understated by $1,037,155. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 CITY OF KOKOMO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued)  Cash disbursements were understated by $1,037,155. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the award 06-79-06420, EDA-Davis Road construction project. 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 §§ 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. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (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. If a Federal awarding agency requires reporting on an accrual basis from a recipient that maintains its records on other than an accrual basis, the recipient must not be required to establish an accrual accounting system. This recipient may develop accrual data for its reports on the basis of an analysis of the documentation on hand. . . . (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. . . ." Cause Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. The errors were due to federal reimbursements not being included as cash receipts and cash disbursements in the SF-425 reports. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 CITY OF KOKOMO SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls over reporting, the City could not ensure that the reports submitted were accurate. In addition, not meeting the Economic Development Cluster reporting requirements increases the likelihood that the public will not have access to transparent and accurate information regarding expenditures of federal awards. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures, to ensure that the City provides the Department of Commerce with complete and accurate information for the SF-425 and quarterly reports. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part 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 2024-037 (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 2024-008 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 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.

FEDERAL PROGRAM ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS ON THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AWARD NUMBERS ALL AWARDS COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ACTIVITIES ALLOWED OR UNALLOWED TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS 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 understanding of internal controls and compliance testing regarding activities allowed or unallowed, we obtained a procedures manual. We found the following deficiencies: • The Center provided written internal control procedures over federal funds management. We observed that the policy didn’t include any detail of procedures, just a general requirement. In addition, the policy does not identify the personnel responsible for the processes to establish segregation of duties. • We selected a sample of 10 (number of disbursements selected) federal funds disbursed and noted that invoices are not marked as they are paid. • From the sample of federal funds disbursed, no evidence was found of approval or verification of allowability of the disbursement, proper segregation of duties, or accountability. • The Center lacks an adequate process to provide regular training to staff on Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, general documentation, acquisitions levels, formal agreements with vendors, vendor selections guidelines and best practices, required documentation regarding grant requirements and other internal best practices. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systematic deficiency. After conducting personnel interviews, we were able to identify procedures for validating the payments. The person told us that after a need to purchase goods or services is identified by the centers, the entity Administrator requests authorization from the President. The President validates with the external accounting firm that the expense category is included in the approved budget and that funds are available before approving the payment. Procedures and internal controls manuals should provide for and ensure the segregation of duties. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The Center didn't have adequate internal controls in place, or documentation that presented adequate segregation of duties and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, no internal controls were documented that supported proper accountability of funds. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT The Center could incur in unallowable costs or activities and not be able to prevent or detect a transaction that doesn't comply with the Federal regulation. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that management establish an adequate internal controls process that identifies documentation, personnel responsible and authorizations. In addition, we recommend management to update established written procedures and internal controls manuals to provide and document the segregation of duties related to the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.

Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, 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. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.