Federal programs: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) CFDA Number: 84.425E / 84.425F Federal award identification number: P425E205418 / P425F204999 Grant period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 and July 23, 2020 to May 23, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Other ? Policies and procedures requirements Condition and context When obtaining an understanding of the internal controls, policies, and procedures regarding the administration of federal programs, and grant term and conditions, we noted the following deficiencies: a. There is no written policy, nor the procedures designed and implemented by the Institution related to Cash Management were documented. The Institution opted to request the funds on a reimbursement basis. b. There were no written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200 subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. c. After examination of the Institution procurement policy, we noted that the document was not signed by all members required from management and was not dated. Upon inquiry, we noted that the procurement policy was drafted and submitted to the Institution for review in February 2023. Therefore, no written policy and formal procedures were designed and implemented for the procurement transactions tested for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 and thereafter. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (6) and (7) establish that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: written procedures to implement the requirements of ? 200.305, and 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 200.303 establish that 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); (b) comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards; (c) evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards; (d) take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; and (e) take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. 2 CFR 200.318 (a) establishes that the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) the non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices; (b) the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) the non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award; (d) the application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Cause The Institution?s federal programs received prior the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020 did not require the implementation of written procedures as mentioned in the condition and context section, except for Cash Management policies and procedures for the Student Financial Assistance Programs Cluster for which the Institution has designed and implemented written procedures for such compliance requirement. The Covid-19 pandemic related programs were the reason why this new federal program funds were received, and the entity failed to design and implement on a timely basis the required written documentation and procedures. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirement could lead to administrative sanctions by the grantor, including disallowance of costs. It could also be interpreted as a failure to achieve the program?s objectives. Questioned costs None. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to implement written policies and procedures needed for the administration of federal grants before the acceptance of new grants. Having well sounded policies and procedures will reduce the Institution risk of non-compliance with federal regulations and grants terms and conditions. Also, they will provide guidance to the Institution?s personnel on how to carry-out their responsibilities and functions in relation to the administration of federal programs transactions. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal programs: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) CFDA Number: 84.425E / 84.425F Federal award identification number: P425E205418 / P425F204999 Grant period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 and July 23, 2020 to May 23, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Other ? Policies and procedures requirements Condition and context When obtaining an understanding of the internal controls, policies, and procedures regarding the administration of federal programs, and grant term and conditions, we noted the following deficiencies: a. There is no written policy, nor the procedures designed and implemented by the Institution related to Cash Management were documented. The Institution opted to request the funds on a reimbursement basis. b. There were no written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200 subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. c. After examination of the Institution procurement policy, we noted that the document was not signed by all members required from management and was not dated. Upon inquiry, we noted that the procurement policy was drafted and submitted to the Institution for review in February 2023. Therefore, no written policy and formal procedures were designed and implemented for the procurement transactions tested for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 and thereafter. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (6) and (7) establish that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: written procedures to implement the requirements of ? 200.305, and 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 200.303 establish that 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); (b) comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards; (c) evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards; (d) take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; and (e) take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. 2 CFR 200.318 (a) establishes that the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) the non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices; (b) the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) the non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award; (d) the application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Cause The Institution?s federal programs received prior the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020 did not require the implementation of written procedures as mentioned in the condition and context section, except for Cash Management policies and procedures for the Student Financial Assistance Programs Cluster for which the Institution has designed and implemented written procedures for such compliance requirement. The Covid-19 pandemic related programs were the reason why this new federal program funds were received, and the entity failed to design and implement on a timely basis the required written documentation and procedures. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirement could lead to administrative sanctions by the grantor, including disallowance of costs. It could also be interpreted as a failure to achieve the program?s objectives. Questioned costs None. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to implement written policies and procedures needed for the administration of federal grants before the acceptance of new grants. Having well sounded policies and procedures will reduce the Institution risk of non-compliance with federal regulations and grants terms and conditions. Also, they will provide guidance to the Institution?s personnel on how to carry-out their responsibilities and functions in relation to the administration of federal programs transactions. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. 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 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 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). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award; (b) the restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area; (d) whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government; and (e) whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that 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 (a) establishes that 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. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal programs: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) CFDA Number: 84.425E / 84.425F Federal award identification number: P425E205418 / P425F204999 Grant period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 and July 23, 2020 to May 23, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Other ? Policies and procedures requirements Condition and context When obtaining an understanding of the internal controls, policies, and procedures regarding the administration of federal programs, and grant term and conditions, we noted the following deficiencies: a. There is no written policy, nor the procedures designed and implemented by the Institution related to Cash Management were documented. The Institution opted to request the funds on a reimbursement basis. b. There were no written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200 subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. c. After examination of the Institution procurement policy, we noted that the document was not signed by all members required from management and was not dated. Upon inquiry, we noted that the procurement policy was drafted and submitted to the Institution for review in February 2023. Therefore, no written policy and formal procedures were designed and implemented for the procurement transactions tested for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 and thereafter. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (6) and (7) establish that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: written procedures to implement the requirements of ? 200.305, and 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 200.303 establish that 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); (b) comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards; (c) evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards; (d) take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; and (e) take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. 2 CFR 200.318 (a) establishes that the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) the non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices; (b) the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) the non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award; (d) the application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Cause The Institution?s federal programs received prior the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020 did not require the implementation of written procedures as mentioned in the condition and context section, except for Cash Management policies and procedures for the Student Financial Assistance Programs Cluster for which the Institution has designed and implemented written procedures for such compliance requirement. The Covid-19 pandemic related programs were the reason why this new federal program funds were received, and the entity failed to design and implement on a timely basis the required written documentation and procedures. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirement could lead to administrative sanctions by the grantor, including disallowance of costs. It could also be interpreted as a failure to achieve the program?s objectives. Questioned costs None. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to implement written policies and procedures needed for the administration of federal grants before the acceptance of new grants. Having well sounded policies and procedures will reduce the Institution risk of non-compliance with federal regulations and grants terms and conditions. Also, they will provide guidance to the Institution?s personnel on how to carry-out their responsibilities and functions in relation to the administration of federal programs transactions. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal programs: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) CFDA Number: 84.425E / 84.425F Federal award identification number: P425E205418 / P425F204999 Grant period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 and July 23, 2020 to May 23, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Other ? Policies and procedures requirements Condition and context When obtaining an understanding of the internal controls, policies, and procedures regarding the administration of federal programs, and grant term and conditions, we noted the following deficiencies: a. There is no written policy, nor the procedures designed and implemented by the Institution related to Cash Management were documented. The Institution opted to request the funds on a reimbursement basis. b. There were no written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200 subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. c. After examination of the Institution procurement policy, we noted that the document was not signed by all members required from management and was not dated. Upon inquiry, we noted that the procurement policy was drafted and submitted to the Institution for review in February 2023. Therefore, no written policy and formal procedures were designed and implemented for the procurement transactions tested for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 and thereafter. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (6) and (7) establish that the financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following: written procedures to implement the requirements of ? 200.305, and 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 200.303 establish that 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); (b) comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards; (c) evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards; (d) take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings; and (e) take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. 2 CFR 200.318 (a) establishes that the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) the non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices; (b) the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) the non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award; (d) the application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Cause The Institution?s federal programs received prior the fiscal year ended July 31, 2020 did not require the implementation of written procedures as mentioned in the condition and context section, except for Cash Management policies and procedures for the Student Financial Assistance Programs Cluster for which the Institution has designed and implemented written procedures for such compliance requirement. The Covid-19 pandemic related programs were the reason why this new federal program funds were received, and the entity failed to design and implement on a timely basis the required written documentation and procedures. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirement could lead to administrative sanctions by the grantor, including disallowance of costs. It could also be interpreted as a failure to achieve the program?s objectives. Questioned costs None. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to implement written policies and procedures needed for the administration of federal grants before the acceptance of new grants. Having well sounded policies and procedures will reduce the Institution risk of non-compliance with federal regulations and grants terms and conditions. Also, they will provide guidance to the Institution?s personnel on how to carry-out their responsibilities and functions in relation to the administration of federal programs transactions. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. 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 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 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). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award; (b) the restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area; (d) whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government; and (e) whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that 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 (a) establishes that 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. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
MONITORING DF A does not consider MHC as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Without proper monitoring and administration of the grant, the risk of noncompliance due to fraud is increased and could result in questioned costs. We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. No. No. Material Weakness Material Noncompliance 2022-032 Strengthen Controls to Ensure Compliance with Federal Monitoring Requirements. ALN Number 21.023 COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) 21.026 COVID-19 Homeowners Assistance Fund (HOF) Federal Award No. NIA Federal Agency U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Entity NI A Questioned Costs NI A Criteria Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.400) requires the non-federal entity: ? To be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. ? Assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. ? Ensure the cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during the review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.303) requires the Non-federal entity: ? 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). ? Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of Federal awards. Condition The Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) passed federal funds to a third-party administrator, Mississippi Home Corporation (MHC) but did not document this subrecipient relationship via a subaward agreement, nor did DF A monitor and support MHC as a subrecipient. MHC is a quasi-governmental agency and not part of the State of Mississippi's financial reporting structure. Therefore, due to lack of support of the subrecipient relationship, we the deemed the programs to be administered by DF A. During testing we noted that DF A did not assume responsibility for the administration of the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.400, nor did they establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.303. DFA did not document their review and approval of program costs which included payroll cost charged to the program based on a billing methodology used for program cost charged to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing counseling grants. There was no evidence of DFA's review and approval over eligibility determined by the MHC or financial and programmatic reports prepared by MHC. Cause The Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) does not consider Mississippi Home Corporation as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Effect Without proper monitoring there is an increased risk of charging unallowed costs and activity to the program and noncompliance with direct and material compliance requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with monitoring processes in order to ensure federal compliance requirements are being met. Repeat Finding Yes; 2021-032. Statistically Valid N/A.
MONITORING DF A does not consider MHC as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Without proper monitoring and administration of the grant, the risk of noncompliance due to fraud is increased and could result in questioned costs. We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. No. No. Material Weakness Material Noncompliance 2022-032 Strengthen Controls to Ensure Compliance with Federal Monitoring Requirements. ALN Number 21.023 COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) 21.026 COVID-19 Homeowners Assistance Fund (HOF) Federal Award No. NIA Federal Agency U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Entity NI A Questioned Costs NI A Criteria Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.400) requires the non-federal entity: ? To be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. ? Assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. ? Ensure the cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during the review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.303) requires the Non-federal entity: ? 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). ? Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of Federal awards. Condition The Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) passed federal funds to a third-party administrator, Mississippi Home Corporation (MHC) but did not document this subrecipient relationship via a subaward agreement, nor did DF A monitor and support MHC as a subrecipient. MHC is a quasi-governmental agency and not part of the State of Mississippi's financial reporting structure. Therefore, due to lack of support of the subrecipient relationship, we the deemed the programs to be administered by DF A. During testing we noted that DF A did not assume responsibility for the administration of the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.400, nor did they establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.303. DFA did not document their review and approval of program costs which included payroll cost charged to the program based on a billing methodology used for program cost charged to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing counseling grants. There was no evidence of DFA's review and approval over eligibility determined by the MHC or financial and programmatic reports prepared by MHC. Cause The Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) does not consider Mississippi Home Corporation as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Effect Without proper monitoring there is an increased risk of charging unallowed costs and activity to the program and noncompliance with direct and material compliance requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with monitoring processes in order to ensure federal compliance requirements are being met. Repeat Finding Yes; 2021-032. Statistically Valid N/A.
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-002 ? Allowable Costs and Activities, Eligibility ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Economic Development Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements under a new program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $6,743,299 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $3,861,548 of known questioned costs and $2,881,751 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 20,000 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 172 are considered to be known noncompliance and 76 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-002. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and help prevent further exposure to noncompliance. This includes the adoption of a formal fraud, waste, and abuse policy in July 2021 as well as providing additional training to employees and third parties that are responsible for reviewing and approving applications in order to better detect invalid applicants to prevent funding these applicants. In May 2021, the Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. Further, internal staffing capacity continues to be expanded with the creation of the Community Programs Processes Department in fall 2021 and the Data and Analytics Department in early 2022. Additional investigative techniques such as ?mass denial metrics? and tiered level reviews have been implemented into weekly application processing. Processes will continue to be implemented in response to changes in behavior by ineligible actors and ineligible application submission attempts. Commission staff has set regular internal coordination meetings to improve communication and aid in the identification of new indicators. Internal compliance staff actively participates in national groups administering similar programs, and explores and adopts new preventative measures demonstrated to be effective in other states. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The organization should have internal controls to ensure that costs charged to federal awards comply with the cost principles contained in Subpart E ? Cost Principles (2 CFR 200.400). Condition: While the Lexington Center Corporation had more than sufficient qualifying costs in excess of the federal award amount, personnel costs previously credited through the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) were coded to the federal award. Pursuant to section 3134(h)(1)(B) and (C) of the Internal Revenue Code, employers may not treat qualified wages used in connection with the ERC also for the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant. Cause: The Lexington Center Corporation did not have policies and procedures over cost principles establishing the allowability of certain items of costs in accordance with allocability standards. Effect: Noncompliance such as unallowable costs charged to the federal award could occur and not be detected or corrected. Audit Recommendation: We recommend that management implement procedures over the administration of federal awards, including establishing written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Uniform Guidance cost principles. Management?s Response: Federal awards received by Lexington Center Corporation spanned the course of two and half years and a major change in management from in-house to a private management company. The expenses submitted under the ERC were done so prior to Oak View Group management, with the expenses submitted under the SVOG overlapping the two management regimes. Management has sufficient qualifying costs for corrective action in this particular circumstance and will be identifying controls that ensure corrective action will not be needed in future circumstances.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002 - Deficient Federal Cost Principles Policies and Procedures Finding Type: Material Weakness and Noncompliance over Federal Awards Programs: Capitalization Grants for Clean Water Revolving Funds (Assistance Listing Number 66.458) Criteria: Per 2 CFR Subpart E - Cost Principles, ? 200.400 Policy guide: The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. Condition/Finding: We examined $1,746,599 of federal funds reimbursed to the City from the State Revolving Fund award during the year. Management informed us and we verified that $134,102 of reimbursements were for ineligible construction costs as these amounts were bid alternates that were not allowed uses of the federal award. Further, management informed us and we verified that $17,253 of federal reimbursements were received for a duplicate construction invoice. Further, as a result of reviewing the ineligible costs, management found that in fiscal year 2021, ALN 66.458 included $5,768 in ineligible expenditures, and the overall total expenditures was understated by $184,073. In addition, ALN 14.228 had expenditures of $229,554 that were understated in fiscal year 2021, and ALN 10.760 had expenditures totaling $81,228 that were understated in fiscal year 2021. Cause: The City did not have written policies and procedures over cost principles as required by the Uniform Guidance. Further, the informal policies and procedures that were followed by the City were not effectively designed. The ineffective design allowed an individual to prepare and submit reimbursement requests for federal funds without appropriate review in place to prevent and detect reimbursement reporting and submission errors. Effect: The City?s controls over cost principles were found to be ineffective. Additionally, the City was noncompliant with cost principal requirements and received reimbursements of $151,355 that were subsequently found (by new management) to be ineligible. Questioned Costs: $151,355 costs have been questioned as a result of this finding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the City Commission and management adopt, and follow, written policies and procedures (that conform with requirements of the Uniform Guidance) to ensure that future grant and/or loan reimbursements are properly reported, documented, and reviewed by individuals with appropriate knowledge of the award to prevent ineligible costs from being received by the City. View of Responsible Officials (Corrective Action): See corrective action plan.
FINDING 2022-011 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Level of Effort-Maintenance of Effort, Earmarking 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): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A190014SIG Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective system of internal controls was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Level of Effort-Maintenance of Effort Maintenance of Effort is a district-level test that determines whether the School Corporation is providing a consistent level of financial support to public schools from year-to-year. This rule ensures that the School does not use Title I funds to shore up reductions in state and local support for public education. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) performs the Maintenance of Effort calculation utilizing Form 9 information provided by the School. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE to be used in the computation are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School's records as to the account and object code. In the fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, 60 transactions were sampled each year to ensure the disbursements were posted to the proper account and object code. For 16 of the 60 transactions selected in 2020-2021, as well as 21 of the 60 transactions selected in 2021- 2022, appropriate supporting documentation was not provided for audit. As a result, the 37 disbursements could not be verified as to whether they were posted to the proper accounts and object codes. Earmarking The School Corporation did not expend the required minimum amount from grant S010A190014 for parent involvement activities. The School also did not have policies or procedures in place to properly monitor the expenses for the Parent Involvement set-aside to ensure the mandatory amounts were spent for both the S010A190014 and the S010A200014 grants. In addition, the Homeless set-asides for grants S010A190014 and S010A200014 were not monitored to ensure expenditures were tracked for those students designated as homeless. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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 200.400 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-011 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Level of Effort-Maintenance of Effort, Earmarking 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): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A190014SIG Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective system of internal controls was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Level of Effort-Maintenance of Effort Maintenance of Effort is a district-level test that determines whether the School Corporation is providing a consistent level of financial support to public schools from year-to-year. This rule ensures that the School does not use Title I funds to shore up reductions in state and local support for public education. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) performs the Maintenance of Effort calculation utilizing Form 9 information provided by the School. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE to be used in the computation are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School's records as to the account and object code. In the fiscal years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, 60 transactions were sampled each year to ensure the disbursements were posted to the proper account and object code. For 16 of the 60 transactions selected in 2020-2021, as well as 21 of the 60 transactions selected in 2021- 2022, appropriate supporting documentation was not provided for audit. As a result, the 37 disbursements could not be verified as to whether they were posted to the proper accounts and object codes. Earmarking The School Corporation did not expend the required minimum amount from grant S010A190014 for parent involvement activities. The School also did not have policies or procedures in place to properly monitor the expenses for the Parent Involvement set-aside to ensure the mandatory amounts were spent for both the S010A190014 and the S010A200014 grants. In addition, the Homeless set-asides for grants S010A190014 and S010A200014 were not monitored to ensure expenditures were tracked for those students designated as homeless. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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 200.400 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit, related to the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls and retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
2022-054 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Improve controls over payments for Medicaid clients Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: N/A Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to service providers through the Jsystems system. We randomly sampled 61 clients and one Medicaid service payment associated with each client using a statistically valid sample. We reviewed agency documentation to test compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Cost requirements. For 1 client, we found the issues described below. ? The claim selected as our sample item did not have mileage accurately calculated, which resulted in an overpayment. Further review of payments for this client identified additional inaccurate payments during the fiscal year for mileage to this provider. Questioned costs identified for our sample item resulted in an overpayment of $6.00 and other identified questioned costs resulted in an underpayment of ($5.27). The above issues occurred due to human error when entering mileage into the state payment system from the home care worker mileage tracking software (OR-PTC), which lead to improper payments. Phase 1 of the OR-PTC system was implemented in September of 2021. During this phase of the implementation branches must run a report of mileage claims and enter these claims manually into the payment system. Due to the exceptions noted above, we reviewed all clients within our sample for the fiscal year which had mileage entered into the OR-PTC system and identified multiple additional underpayments and overpayments that resulted in an overall underpayment of ($49.07). Due to the systemic nature of this issue, we are unable to reasonably estimate or quantify remaining potential questioned costs outside of our sample population. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over the OR-PTC system to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed.
2022-055 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: $47,942 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state?s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following 2 errors, which were not identified during their review process, that resulted in improper payment of Medicaid expenditures: ? Payments to one vendor charged expenditures related to a specific project unrelated to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $1,361. ? For one payment management was unable to provide a contract or support for bids collected for the project charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $46,581. The above issues occurred due to human error and inadequate record maintenance which could lead to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed. Additionally, we recommend the authority reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2022-054 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Improve controls over payments for Medicaid clients Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: N/A Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to service providers through the Jsystems system. We randomly sampled 61 clients and one Medicaid service payment associated with each client using a statistically valid sample. We reviewed agency documentation to test compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Cost requirements. For 1 client, we found the issues described below. ? The claim selected as our sample item did not have mileage accurately calculated, which resulted in an overpayment. Further review of payments for this client identified additional inaccurate payments during the fiscal year for mileage to this provider. Questioned costs identified for our sample item resulted in an overpayment of $6.00 and other identified questioned costs resulted in an underpayment of ($5.27). The above issues occurred due to human error when entering mileage into the state payment system from the home care worker mileage tracking software (OR-PTC), which lead to improper payments. Phase 1 of the OR-PTC system was implemented in September of 2021. During this phase of the implementation branches must run a report of mileage claims and enter these claims manually into the payment system. Due to the exceptions noted above, we reviewed all clients within our sample for the fiscal year which had mileage entered into the OR-PTC system and identified multiple additional underpayments and overpayments that resulted in an overall underpayment of ($49.07). Due to the systemic nature of this issue, we are unable to reasonably estimate or quantify remaining potential questioned costs outside of our sample population. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over the OR-PTC system to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed.
2022-055 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: $47,942 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state?s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following 2 errors, which were not identified during their review process, that resulted in improper payment of Medicaid expenditures: ? Payments to one vendor charged expenditures related to a specific project unrelated to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $1,361. ? For one payment management was unable to provide a contract or support for bids collected for the project charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $46,581. The above issues occurred due to human error and inadequate record maintenance which could lead to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed. Additionally, we recommend the authority reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
MATERIAL WEAKNESS IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE ? U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PASSED THROUGH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TITLE I GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES ? FEDERAL ALN 84.010 2022-003 Internal Control and Noncompliance With Allowable Cost Requirements Criteria ? 2 CFR ? 200.400 (i) requires Independent School District No. 624 (the District) to maintain records that adequately and accurately identify the source and application of funds for federally-funded activities to ensure the proper determination of allowable costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200 Subpart E ? Cost Principles. Condition ? During our audit, we noted that the District did not have sufficient controls to ensure proper determination of allowable costs charged to federal programs and compliance with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget?s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) allowable costs standards, which resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs ? $26,466. Context ? The District did not properly determine the allowable costs for salaries for 2 of 3 employees sampled. This was not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding ? This is a current year finding. Cause ? This was an oversight by district personnel. Effect ? Noncompliance with the allowable costs requirements resulted in the District receiving reimbursements for unsupported costs. Recommendation ? We recommend that the District review its internal control procedures relating to documentation and determination of allowable costs for its Title I federal program. View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions ? The District agrees with the finding. The District will review and update its policies and procedures relating to documentation and determination of allowable costs for its federal programs to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance in the future. The District has separately issued a Corrective Action Plan related to this finding.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public students for private school and homeschooled students were met. The School Corporation did not spend all of the required proportionate share for grant 20611-047-PN01. Additionally, the School Corporation did not spend any of the required proportionate share amount for grant 20619-047-PN01. For grant 20611-047-PN01, the amounts spent for one of the four teachers was not supported by timesheets. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 KANKAKEE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2022-008 Lack of Internal Control over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Material Weakness Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Material Noncompliance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Program: School Safety National Activities and Native Youth Community Programs ALN: 84.184 and 84.299 Award Numbers: S299A170061, S299A18022, S299A180025, and S18G190154 Award Years: 2017, 2018, and 2019 Type of Finding: Material weakness in internal control over compliance and material noncompliance. Criteria: Allowable cost principles are defined in 2 CFR 200.400. Condition and Context: We select a sample of 25 expenditures transactions for ALN 84.184. The District did not provide supporting documentation for 4 of these transactions. The District also did not provide detailed payroll distribution reports to select samples from. We selected 6 payroll transactions for ALN 84.184 and 15 payroll transactions for ALN 84.299. The District did not provide the auditors with supporting documentation for any of the payroll transactions selected. Cause: Lack of internal control over transactions charged to the major programs. Effect: The lack of supporting documentation allows for the potential for misstatement of expenditures being charged to the major program for which the cost is unallowable. Questioned Costs: Actual and likely questioned costs estimated to be below the reporting threshold of $25,000. Based on the auditor?s review of pay rates, all employees were being paid a reasonable amount based on the their position and the auditor?s experience with similar entities. Repeat Finding: No. We believe this to be an isolated issue due to employee turnover. Recommendation: We recommend the District adhere to their internal control policies to ensure that the regulations contained in 2 CFR 200 are followed. Management?s Response: Management agrees with this finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2022-008 Lack of Internal Control over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Material Weakness Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Material Noncompliance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Program: School Safety National Activities and Native Youth Community Programs ALN: 84.184 and 84.299 Award Numbers: S299A170061, S299A18022, S299A180025, and S18G190154 Award Years: 2017, 2018, and 2019 Type of Finding: Material weakness in internal control over compliance and material noncompliance. Criteria: Allowable cost principles are defined in 2 CFR 200.400. Condition and Context: We select a sample of 25 expenditures transactions for ALN 84.184. The District did not provide supporting documentation for 4 of these transactions. The District also did not provide detailed payroll distribution reports to select samples from. We selected 6 payroll transactions for ALN 84.184 and 15 payroll transactions for ALN 84.299. The District did not provide the auditors with supporting documentation for any of the payroll transactions selected. Cause: Lack of internal control over transactions charged to the major programs. Effect: The lack of supporting documentation allows for the potential for misstatement of expenditures being charged to the major program for which the cost is unallowable. Questioned Costs: Actual and likely questioned costs estimated to be below the reporting threshold of $25,000. Based on the auditor?s review of pay rates, all employees were being paid a reasonable amount based on the their position and the auditor?s experience with similar entities. Repeat Finding: No. We believe this to be an isolated issue due to employee turnover. Recommendation: We recommend the District adhere to their internal control policies to ensure that the regulations contained in 2 CFR 200 are followed. Management?s Response: Management agrees with this finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2022-008 Lack of Internal Control over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Material Weakness Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Material Noncompliance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Program: School Safety National Activities and Native Youth Community Programs ALN: 84.184 and 84.299 Award Numbers: S299A170061, S299A18022, S299A180025, and S18G190154 Award Years: 2017, 2018, and 2019 Type of Finding: Material weakness in internal control over compliance and material noncompliance. Criteria: Allowable cost principles are defined in 2 CFR 200.400. Condition and Context: We select a sample of 25 expenditures transactions for ALN 84.184. The District did not provide supporting documentation for 4 of these transactions. The District also did not provide detailed payroll distribution reports to select samples from. We selected 6 payroll transactions for ALN 84.184 and 15 payroll transactions for ALN 84.299. The District did not provide the auditors with supporting documentation for any of the payroll transactions selected. Cause: Lack of internal control over transactions charged to the major programs. Effect: The lack of supporting documentation allows for the potential for misstatement of expenditures being charged to the major program for which the cost is unallowable. Questioned Costs: Actual and likely questioned costs estimated to be below the reporting threshold of $25,000. Based on the auditor?s review of pay rates, all employees were being paid a reasonable amount based on the their position and the auditor?s experience with similar entities. Repeat Finding: No. We believe this to be an isolated issue due to employee turnover. Recommendation: We recommend the District adhere to their internal control policies to ensure that the regulations contained in 2 CFR 200 are followed. Management?s Response: Management agrees with this finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2022-008 Lack of Internal Control over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Material Weakness Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Material Noncompliance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Program: School Safety National Activities and Native Youth Community Programs ALN: 84.184 and 84.299 Award Numbers: S299A170061, S299A18022, S299A180025, and S18G190154 Award Years: 2017, 2018, and 2019 Type of Finding: Material weakness in internal control over compliance and material noncompliance. Criteria: Allowable cost principles are defined in 2 CFR 200.400. Condition and Context: We select a sample of 25 expenditures transactions for ALN 84.184. The District did not provide supporting documentation for 4 of these transactions. The District also did not provide detailed payroll distribution reports to select samples from. We selected 6 payroll transactions for ALN 84.184 and 15 payroll transactions for ALN 84.299. The District did not provide the auditors with supporting documentation for any of the payroll transactions selected. Cause: Lack of internal control over transactions charged to the major programs. Effect: The lack of supporting documentation allows for the potential for misstatement of expenditures being charged to the major program for which the cost is unallowable. Questioned Costs: Actual and likely questioned costs estimated to be below the reporting threshold of $25,000. Based on the auditor?s review of pay rates, all employees were being paid a reasonable amount based on the their position and the auditor?s experience with similar entities. Repeat Finding: No. We believe this to be an isolated issue due to employee turnover. Recommendation: We recommend the District adhere to their internal control policies to ensure that the regulations contained in 2 CFR 200 are followed. Management?s Response: Management agrees with this finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public students for private school and homeschooled students were met. The School Corporation did not spend all of the required proportionate share for grant 20611-047-PN01. Additionally, the School Corporation did not spend any of the required proportionate share amount for grant 20619-047-PN01. For grant 20611-047-PN01, the amounts spent for one of the four teachers was not supported by timesheets. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 KANKAKEE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public students for private school and homeschooled students were met. The School Corporation did not spend all of the required proportionate share for grant 20611-047-PN01. Additionally, the School Corporation did not spend any of the required proportionate share amount for grant 20619-047-PN01. For grant 20611-047-PN01, the amounts spent for one of the four teachers was not supported by timesheets. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 KANKAKEE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-047-PN01, 20619-047-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public students for private school and homeschooled students were met. The School Corporation did not spend all of the required proportionate share for grant 20611-047-PN01. Additionally, the School Corporation did not spend any of the required proportionate share amount for grant 20619-047-PN01. For grant 20611-047-PN01, the amounts spent for one of the four teachers was not supported by timesheets. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 KANKAKEE VALLEY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 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: . . . (g) Be adequately documented . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." 511 IAC 7-34-7(b) states: "The public agency, in providing special education and related services to students in nonpublic schools must expend at least an amount that is the same proportion of the public agency total subgrant under 20 U.S.C. 1411(f) as the number of nonpublic school students with disabilities, who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools within its boundaries, is to the total number of students with disabilities of the same age range." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-008 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Earmarking 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): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-008. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Officials of the School Corporation were unaware that the earmarking requirement for Parental Involvement was a mandatory spending requirement. Therefore, there were no internal controls in place related to this requirement nor was the required amounts spent for parental involvement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 37 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 2 CFR 200.207 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal Awarding Agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-008 Subject: Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - Earmarking 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): S010A190014, S010A200014, S010A210014 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2020-008. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Officials of the School Corporation were unaware that the earmarking requirement for Parental Involvement was a mandatory spending requirement. Therefore, there were no internal controls in place related to this requirement nor was the required amounts spent for parental involvement. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 37 SCOTT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2 SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: ". . . (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . ." 2 CFR 200.207 (Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal Awarding Agency or pass-through entity may impose additional specific award conditions as needed . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause Management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, and Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the earmarking requirements of the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Child Nutrition Cluster ?School Nutrition Program ? Assistance Listing #10.555 and Summer Food Service Program ? Assistance Listing #10.559 2022-005 ? Significant Deficiency in Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance ? Administrative Policies This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-006 Conditions and Criteria: Written policies associated with financial management, allowable costs, cash management, procurement and compensation are in need of adoption and enhancement to meet the administrative requirements of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200). Cause/Context: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids have limited written policies and procedures that are applicable to federal awards and address the direct and material compliance matters important to the major federal program. In addition, there are unique policy requirements of Uniform Guidance related to financial management, allowable costs, cash management and procurement that are relevant to the Schools? federal programs. Recommendations: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids should adopt the following written policies and updates: ? Financial Management (2 CFR 200.302) The financial management policy should include records documenting compliance, and the tracking of funds to determine that expenditures are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The financial management and reporting system must provide the following: ? Identification - Title of the award, CFDA number ? Complete disclosure of accurate and current financial results of each federal award ? Source and application of funds for federal award activity ? Record retention and access ? define the time period for which records must be kept (can vary by grant agreement), and who has the ability access the records (?200.333 - ?200.337) ? Written procedure to implement cash management requirements (see below) ? Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs (see below) ? Cash Management (2 CFR 200.305) A written policy is required by Uniform Guidance detailing the Schools? procedures to minimize the time that elapses between draw and expenditure of federal dollars. ? Allowable Costs (2 CFR 200.302(b)(7)) The Schools must have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E - Cost Principles of Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes the determination of allowable costs and the review of this determination. The standard assumes policies and procedures are in place for disbursements, and the allowable cost policy will demonstrate how the Schools ensure compliance. The criteria for costs to be considered allowable are documented within 2 CFR 200.403. ? Procurement Standards (2 CFR 200.317 ? 200.326) The Schools must have a written policy that promotes full and open vendor competition, conflict of interest policies should cover employees as well as the organization, and general purchase requirements with specific thresholds as set forth by the Uniform Guidance. There are five allowable procurement methods as described in ?200.320. ? Policy Guide (2 CFR 200.400) In summary, the Schools must have written policies that document the efficient and effective administration of federal awards through sound management practices. The Schools have the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration of the federal awards. The accounting practices must be consistent with Uniform Guidance cost principles, support the accumulation of costs as required, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Child Nutrition Cluster ?School Nutrition Program ? Assistance Listing #10.555 and Summer Food Service Program ? Assistance Listing #10.559 2022-005 ? Significant Deficiency in Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance ? Administrative Policies This is also a compliance finding, not just controls - UPDATED This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-006 Conditions and Criteria: Written policies associated with financial management, allowable costs, cash management, procurement and compensation are in need of adoption and enhancement to meet the administrative requirements of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200). Cause/Context: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids have limited written policies and procedures that are applicable to federal awards and address the direct and material compliance matters important to the major federal program. In addition, there are unique policy requirements of Uniform Guidance related to financial management, allowable costs, cash management and procurement that are relevant to the Schools? federal programs. Recommendations: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids should adopt the following written policies and updates: ? Financial Management (2 CFR 200.302) The financial management policy should include records documenting compliance, and the tracking of funds to determine that expenditures are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The financial management and reporting system must provide the following: ? Identification - Title of the award, CFDA number ? Complete disclosure of accurate and current financial results of each federal award ? Source and application of funds for federal award activity ? Record retention and access ? define the time period for which records must be kept (can vary by grant agreement), and who has the ability access the records (?200.333 - ?200.337) ? Written procedure to implement cash management requirements (see below) ? Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs (see below) ? Cash Management (2 CFR 200.305) A written policy is required by Uniform Guidance detailing the Schools? procedures to minimize the time that elapses between draw and expenditure of federal dollars. ? Allowable Costs (2 CFR 200.302(b)(7)) The Schools must have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E - Cost Principles of Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes the determination of allowable costs and the review of this determination. The standard assumes policies and procedures are in place for disbursements, and the allowable cost policy will demonstrate how the Schools ensure compliance. The criteria for costs to be considered allowable are documented within 2 CFR 200.403. ? Procurement Standards (2 CFR 200.317 ? 200.326) The Schools must have a written policy that promotes full and open vendor competition, conflict of interest policies should cover employees as well as the organization, and general purchase requirements with specific thresholds as set forth by the Uniform Guidance. There are five allowable procurement methods as described in ?200.320. ? Policy Guide (2 CFR 200.400) In summary, the Schools must have written policies that document the efficient and effective administration of federal awards through sound management practices. The Schools have the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration of the federal awards. The accounting practices must be consistent with Uniform Guidance cost principles, support the accumulation of costs as required, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur with the findings of the auditors. We have developed a plan to address the findings, and are actively working to implement that plan. The corrective action plan is attached to this report.
Child Nutrition Cluster ?School Nutrition Program ? Assistance Listing #10.555 and Summer Food Service Program ? Assistance Listing #10.559 2022-005 ? Significant Deficiency in Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance ? Administrative Policies This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-006 Conditions and Criteria: Written policies associated with financial management, allowable costs, cash management, procurement and compensation are in need of adoption and enhancement to meet the administrative requirements of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200). Cause/Context: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids have limited written policies and procedures that are applicable to federal awards and address the direct and material compliance matters important to the major federal program. In addition, there are unique policy requirements of Uniform Guidance related to financial management, allowable costs, cash management and procurement that are relevant to the Schools? federal programs. Recommendations: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids should adopt the following written policies and updates: ? Financial Management (2 CFR 200.302) The financial management policy should include records documenting compliance, and the tracking of funds to determine that expenditures are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The financial management and reporting system must provide the following: ? Identification - Title of the award, CFDA number ? Complete disclosure of accurate and current financial results of each federal award ? Source and application of funds for federal award activity ? Record retention and access ? define the time period for which records must be kept (can vary by grant agreement), and who has the ability access the records (?200.333 - ?200.337) ? Written procedure to implement cash management requirements (see below) ? Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs (see below) ? Cash Management (2 CFR 200.305) A written policy is required by Uniform Guidance detailing the Schools? procedures to minimize the time that elapses between draw and expenditure of federal dollars. ? Allowable Costs (2 CFR 200.302(b)(7)) The Schools must have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E - Cost Principles of Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes the determination of allowable costs and the review of this determination. The standard assumes policies and procedures are in place for disbursements, and the allowable cost policy will demonstrate how the Schools ensure compliance. The criteria for costs to be considered allowable are documented within 2 CFR 200.403. ? Procurement Standards (2 CFR 200.317 ? 200.326) The Schools must have a written policy that promotes full and open vendor competition, conflict of interest policies should cover employees as well as the organization, and general purchase requirements with specific thresholds as set forth by the Uniform Guidance. There are five allowable procurement methods as described in ?200.320. ? Policy Guide (2 CFR 200.400) In summary, the Schools must have written policies that document the efficient and effective administration of federal awards through sound management practices. The Schools have the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration of the federal awards. The accounting practices must be consistent with Uniform Guidance cost principles, support the accumulation of costs as required, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Child Nutrition Cluster ?School Nutrition Program ? Assistance Listing #10.555 and Summer Food Service Program ? Assistance Listing #10.559 2022-005 ? Significant Deficiency in Controls over Compliance and Compliance Finding: Administrative Requirements of Uniform Guidance ? Administrative Policies This is also a compliance finding, not just controls - UPDATED This is a repeat of prior year finding 2021-006 Conditions and Criteria: Written policies associated with financial management, allowable costs, cash management, procurement and compensation are in need of adoption and enhancement to meet the administrative requirements of Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200). Cause/Context: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids have limited written policies and procedures that are applicable to federal awards and address the direct and material compliance matters important to the major federal program. In addition, there are unique policy requirements of Uniform Guidance related to financial management, allowable costs, cash management and procurement that are relevant to the Schools? federal programs. Recommendations: The Catholic Secondary Schools of the Diocese of Grand Rapids should adopt the following written policies and updates: ? Financial Management (2 CFR 200.302) The financial management policy should include records documenting compliance, and the tracking of funds to determine that expenditures are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the federal awards. The financial management and reporting system must provide the following: ? Identification - Title of the award, CFDA number ? Complete disclosure of accurate and current financial results of each federal award ? Source and application of funds for federal award activity ? Record retention and access ? define the time period for which records must be kept (can vary by grant agreement), and who has the ability access the records (?200.333 - ?200.337) ? Written procedure to implement cash management requirements (see below) ? Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs (see below) ? Cash Management (2 CFR 200.305) A written policy is required by Uniform Guidance detailing the Schools? procedures to minimize the time that elapses between draw and expenditure of federal dollars. ? Allowable Costs (2 CFR 200.302(b)(7)) The Schools must have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with Subpart E - Cost Principles of Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes the determination of allowable costs and the review of this determination. The standard assumes policies and procedures are in place for disbursements, and the allowable cost policy will demonstrate how the Schools ensure compliance. The criteria for costs to be considered allowable are documented within 2 CFR 200.403. ? Procurement Standards (2 CFR 200.317 ? 200.326) The Schools must have a written policy that promotes full and open vendor competition, conflict of interest policies should cover employees as well as the organization, and general purchase requirements with specific thresholds as set forth by the Uniform Guidance. There are five allowable procurement methods as described in ?200.320. ? Policy Guide (2 CFR 200.400) In summary, the Schools must have written policies that document the efficient and effective administration of federal awards through sound management practices. The Schools have the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary to assure proper and efficient administration of the federal awards. The accounting practices must be consistent with Uniform Guidance cost principles, support the accumulation of costs as required, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur with the findings of the auditors. We have developed a plan to address the findings, and are actively working to implement that plan. The corrective action plan is attached to this report.
FINDING 2022-007Subject: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies - EarmarkingFederal Agency: Department of EducationFederal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational AgenciesAssistance Listings Number: 84.010Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY19, FY 20Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of EducationCompliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, EarmarkingAudit Findings: Material Weakness, Other MattersCondition and ContextAn effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliancewith requirements related to the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarkingcompliance requirement.Officials of the School Corporation did not properly monitor the Homeless set-aside to ensureamounts were tracked for those students designated as homeless. For the Title I grant years FY19 andFY20, the entire Homeless set-aside of $1,632 and $550, respectively, was not spent. In addition, the setasideswere not carried forward for subsequent year expenses.The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period.INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS27BLACKFORD COUNTY SCHOOLSSCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS(Continued)Criteria2 CFR 200.303 states in part:"The Non-Federal entity must:(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that providesreasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award incompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federalaward. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards forInternal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of theUnited States or the 'Internal Control Integrated framework', issued by the Committee ofSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ."2 CFR 200.400 states in part:"(a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of theFederal award through the application of sound management practices.(b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a mannerconsistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions ofthe Federal award. . . ."20 USC 6313(c)(3) states in part:"(A) In General. A local educational agency shall reserve such funds as are necessary underthis part, determined in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C), to provide servicescomparable to those provided to children in schools funded under this part to serve?(i) homeless children and youths, including providing educationally related supportservices to children in shelters and other locations where children may live;(ii) children in local institutions for neglected children; and(iii) if appropriate, children in local institutions for delinquent children, and neglected ordelinquent children in community day programs. . . .(C) Homeless children and youths. Funds reserved under subparagraph (A)(i) may be? . . .(ii) used to provide homeless children and youths with services not ordinarily provided toother students under this part, including providing?(I) funding for the liaison designated pursuant to section 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii) of title 42;and(II) transportation pursuant to section 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such title."CauseManagement had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensuredcompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement.INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS28BLACKFORD COUNTY SCHOOLSSCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS(Continued)EffectThe failure to establish an effective system of internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected.Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliancerequirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation.Questioned CostsThere were no questioned costs identified.RecommendationWe recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls related tothe grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement.Views of Responsible OfficialsFor the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007Subject: Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies - EarmarkingFederal Agency: Department of EducationFederal Program: Title I Grants to Local Educational AgenciesAssistance Listings Number: 84.010Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY19, FY 20Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of EducationCompliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, EarmarkingAudit Findings: Material Weakness, Other MattersCondition and ContextAn effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliancewith requirements related to the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarkingcompliance requirement.Officials of the School Corporation did not properly monitor the Homeless set-aside to ensureamounts were tracked for those students designated as homeless. For the Title I grant years FY19 andFY20, the entire Homeless set-aside of $1,632 and $550, respectively, was not spent. In addition, the setasideswere not carried forward for subsequent year expenses.The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period.INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS27BLACKFORD COUNTY SCHOOLSSCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS(Continued)Criteria2 CFR 200.303 states in part:"The Non-Federal entity must:(a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that providesreasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award incompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federalaward. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards forInternal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of theUnited States or the 'Internal Control Integrated framework', issued by the Committee ofSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ."2 CFR 200.400 states in part:"(a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of theFederal award through the application of sound management practices.(b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a mannerconsistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions ofthe Federal award. . . ."20 USC 6313(c)(3) states in part:"(A) In General. A local educational agency shall reserve such funds as are necessary underthis part, determined in accordance with subparagraphs (B) and (C), to provide servicescomparable to those provided to children in schools funded under this part to serve?(i) homeless children and youths, including providing educationally related supportservices to children in shelters and other locations where children may live;(ii) children in local institutions for neglected children; and(iii) if appropriate, children in local institutions for delinquent children, and neglected ordelinquent children in community day programs. . . .(C) Homeless children and youths. Funds reserved under subparagraph (A)(i) may be? . . .(ii) used to provide homeless children and youths with services not ordinarily provided toother students under this part, including providing?(I) funding for the liaison designated pursuant to section 11432(g)(1)(J)(ii) of title 42;and(II) transportation pursuant to section 11432(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such title."CauseManagement had not established an effective system of internal controls that would have ensuredcompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement.INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS28BLACKFORD COUNTY SCHOOLSSCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS(Continued)EffectThe failure to establish an effective system of internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected.Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliancerequirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation.Questioned CostsThere were no questioned costs identified.RecommendationWe recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls related tothe grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement.Views of Responsible OfficialsFor the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
MONITORING DF A does not consider MHC as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Without proper monitoring and administration of the grant, the risk of noncompliance due to fraud is increased and could result in questioned costs. We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. No. No. Material Weakness Material Noncompliance 2022-032 Strengthen Controls to Ensure Compliance with Federal Monitoring Requirements. ALN Number 21.023 COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) 21.026 COVID-19 Homeowners Assistance Fund (HOF) Federal Award No. NIA Federal Agency U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Entity NI A Questioned Costs NI A Criteria Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.400) requires the non-federal entity: ? To be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. ? Assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. ? Ensure the cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during the review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.303) requires the Non-federal entity: ? 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). ? Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of Federal awards. Condition The Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) passed federal funds to a third-party administrator, Mississippi Home Corporation (MHC) but did not document this subrecipient relationship via a subaward agreement, nor did DF A monitor and support MHC as a subrecipient. MHC is a quasi-governmental agency and not part of the State of Mississippi's financial reporting structure. Therefore, due to lack of support of the subrecipient relationship, we the deemed the programs to be administered by DF A. During testing we noted that DF A did not assume responsibility for the administration of the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.400, nor did they establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.303. DFA did not document their review and approval of program costs which included payroll cost charged to the program based on a billing methodology used for program cost charged to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing counseling grants. There was no evidence of DFA's review and approval over eligibility determined by the MHC or financial and programmatic reports prepared by MHC. Cause The Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) does not consider Mississippi Home Corporation as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Effect Without proper monitoring there is an increased risk of charging unallowed costs and activity to the program and noncompliance with direct and material compliance requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with monitoring processes in order to ensure federal compliance requirements are being met. Repeat Finding Yes; 2021-032. Statistically Valid N/A.
MONITORING DF A does not consider MHC as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Without proper monitoring and administration of the grant, the risk of noncompliance due to fraud is increased and could result in questioned costs. We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with eligibility requirements for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program. No. No. Material Weakness Material Noncompliance 2022-032 Strengthen Controls to Ensure Compliance with Federal Monitoring Requirements. ALN Number 21.023 COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) 21.026 COVID-19 Homeowners Assistance Fund (HOF) Federal Award No. NIA Federal Agency U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Entity NI A Questioned Costs NI A Criteria Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.400) requires the non-federal entity: ? To be responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. ? Assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. ? Ensure the cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during the review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR 200.303) requires the Non-federal entity: ? 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). ? Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of Federal awards. Condition The Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) passed federal funds to a third-party administrator, Mississippi Home Corporation (MHC) but did not document this subrecipient relationship via a subaward agreement, nor did DF A monitor and support MHC as a subrecipient. MHC is a quasi-governmental agency and not part of the State of Mississippi's financial reporting structure. Therefore, due to lack of support of the subrecipient relationship, we the deemed the programs to be administered by DF A. During testing we noted that DF A did not assume responsibility for the administration of the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.400, nor did they establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award as required by 2 CFR 200.303. DFA did not document their review and approval of program costs which included payroll cost charged to the program based on a billing methodology used for program cost charged to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing counseling grants. There was no evidence of DFA's review and approval over eligibility determined by the MHC or financial and programmatic reports prepared by MHC. Cause The Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration (DF A) does not consider Mississippi Home Corporation as a subrecipient nor does DF A assume responsibility for the direct and material compliance requirements. The program is administered without any responsibility and oversight from the State of Mississippi, the grant recipient. Effect Without proper monitoring there is an increased risk of charging unallowed costs and activity to the program and noncompliance with direct and material compliance requirements. Recommendation We recommend the Department of Finance and Administration strengthen controls to ensure compliance with monitoring processes in order to ensure federal compliance requirements are being met. Repeat Finding Yes; 2021-032. Statistically Valid N/A.
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-001 ? Allowable Costs and Activities ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Social Services Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements for the program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $2,087,937 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $1,791,963 of known questioned costs and $295,974 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 1,300 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 133 are considered to be known noncompliance and 15 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-001. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and identify instances of potential noncompliance. The funding for the direct rental assistance under this program was concluded and the final disbursements made in early May 2021. The Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager in May 2021 and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. A formal fraud, waste and abuse policy was adopted in July 2021. During fiscal year 2022, the Commission undertook extensive efforts to detect instances of ineligible applicants and documentation irregularities, which resulted in identification of these instances of applicant noncompliance. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Finding 2022-002 ? Allowable Costs and Activities, Eligibility ? Compliance and Control Finding Federal Award. No. 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program ? COVID 19 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-Through Entity: Missouri Department of Economic Development Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.400 through 200.401 provide the general provisions for cost principles. Section 200.400(b) states that the non-Federal entity assumes responsibility of administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: In our nonstatistical sample of 40 transactions, we noted no exceptions as a result of our testing. However, during the current fiscal year, management of the Commission identified certain questionable rental assistance payments. Certain payments have been reported to the appropriate agencies in accordance with regulatory requirements and other payments are pending further investigation. Cause: The significant amount of Federal dollars awarded, the short period of time required to make awards available and the presence of new requirements under a new program were burdensome for management to disburse in compliance with Federal guidelines. Compared to the Commission?s other Federal programs, the program involves a very large number of applications and a high volume of transactions resulting in exposure to error and irregularity. Effect: Instances of known and suspected noncompliance were identified by the Commission. Questioned Costs: $6,743,299 of costs are actively being investigated by the Commission. Of this amount, the Commission has identified $3,861,548 of known questioned costs and $2,881,751 of potential questioned costs that are still being investigated. Context: Approximately 20,000 vendors are set up in the Commission?s system for application of emergency rental assistance. Of the vendors with applications approved for funding, 172 are considered to be known noncompliance and 76 are being investigated for potential noncompliance. After the identification of the first instance of noncompliance, the Commission adjusted and enhanced its procedures for evaluating current and existing applications. As the Commission reviews future applications following their updated policies and procedures, additional vendors could be flagged to investigate prior payments for potential ineligible costs. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Repeat of Finding No. 2021-002. Recommendation: We recommend that management continue to apply resources devoted to mitigating and preventing further exposure to noncompliance. Additionally, we recommend the Commission continue to provide additional training to employees as well as third parties responsible for reviewing and approving applications. Internal controls over allowable costs and activities should ensure procedural improvements are implemented properly. Views Of Responsible Officials: The Commission administered direct assistance according to the program rules and regulations. The Commission collected the required information and documentation to review and approve applications. Applicants submitted certified applications meeting the requirements of the program. However, the Commission staff discovered through its noncompliance review and identification processes that some program applicants provided false information and fraudulent documentation that continues to be investigated and reported to the proper authorities. Internal controls have been enhanced to mitigate and help prevent further exposure to noncompliance. This includes the adoption of a formal fraud, waste, and abuse policy in July 2021 as well as providing additional training to employees and third parties that are responsible for reviewing and approving applications in order to better detect invalid applicants to prevent funding these applicants. In May 2021, the Commission hired an Internal Compliance Manager and has engaged a third party law firm and a consulting group to provide consultative assistance to improve processes and to assist in investigating applications deemed to be questionable. Further, internal staffing capacity continues to be expanded with the creation of the Community Programs Processes Department in fall 2021 and the Data and Analytics Department in early 2022. Additional investigative techniques such as ?mass denial metrics? and tiered level reviews have been implemented into weekly application processing. Processes will continue to be implemented in response to changes in behavior by ineligible actors and ineligible application submission attempts. Commission staff has set regular internal coordination meetings to improve communication and aid in the identification of new indicators. Internal compliance staff actively participates in national groups administering similar programs, and explores and adopts new preventative measures demonstrated to be effective in other states. Anticipated Completion Date: The Commission implemented additional compliance review procedures during fiscal year 2021 and expects to conclude its investigation of identified cases during calendar year 2023. Contact Person: Steve Whitson, Director of Community Programs
Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The organization should have internal controls to ensure that costs charged to federal awards comply with the cost principles contained in Subpart E ? Cost Principles (2 CFR 200.400). Condition: While the Lexington Center Corporation had more than sufficient qualifying costs in excess of the federal award amount, personnel costs previously credited through the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) were coded to the federal award. Pursuant to section 3134(h)(1)(B) and (C) of the Internal Revenue Code, employers may not treat qualified wages used in connection with the ERC also for the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant. Cause: The Lexington Center Corporation did not have policies and procedures over cost principles establishing the allowability of certain items of costs in accordance with allocability standards. Effect: Noncompliance such as unallowable costs charged to the federal award could occur and not be detected or corrected. Audit Recommendation: We recommend that management implement procedures over the administration of federal awards, including establishing written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with Uniform Guidance cost principles. Management?s Response: Federal awards received by Lexington Center Corporation spanned the course of two and half years and a major change in management from in-house to a private management company. The expenses submitted under the ERC were done so prior to Oak View Group management, with the expenses submitted under the SVOG overlapping the two management regimes. Management has sufficient qualifying costs for corrective action in this particular circumstance and will be identifying controls that ensure corrective action will not be needed in future circumstances.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.
2022-002. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles United States Department of Education, passed through New York State Department of Education Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ALN: 84.010 Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States ALN: 84.027A Special Education Preschool Grants ALN: 84.173A Criteria: 2 CFR ?200.400 of the Uniform Guidance issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget requires management to have adequate documentation to support costs charged to federal awards. In consideration of this, the District is required to make purchases using federal funds that comply with program guidelines established by federal and state agencies, and all purchases made using federal funds should be reviewed and approved by an administrator familiar with those program guidelines. Condition: Based on our sample testing of the expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster and the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, we noted that some expenditures did not show evidence of a grant administrator?s review and approval. Cause: The District did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that all expenditures charged to the federal programs were reviewed and approved by the appropriate administrator prior to payment. Effect: This could result in the District potentially submitting unallowable expenditures for reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Special Education Cluster was 63. The audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 6 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in 2 of the 6 samples selected. Total population size of purchase expenditures for the Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies was 11. Audit sample size was 10% of the population, which totaled 2 samples that were haphazardly selected for audit testing. The finding was identified in the 2 samples selected. Recommendation: The District should implement procedures whereby all expenditures charged to federal grant programs show documented evidence of review and approval for payment by the appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of that grants. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: Management agrees with the finding. The District?s Assistant Superintendent for Business has begun implementing procedures to ensure all expenditures charged to federal programs show evidence of review and approval of an appropriate grant administrator responsible for the oversight of these grants.