FINDING 2023-005 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 20611-019-PN01, 21611-019-PN01, 22611-019-PN01, 23611-019-PN01, 22611-019-ARP, 21619-019-PN01, 23619-019-PN01, 22619-019-ARP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) Special Education - Grants to States program provides grant to states, and through them to Local Educational Agencies (i.e., the School Corporation), to assist them in providing special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities ages three to twenty-one. The IDEA's Special Education - Preschool Grants program provides grants to states, and through them to the Local Educational Agencies to assist them in providing special education and related services to children with disabilities ages three to five and, at the state's discretion, to two-year-old children with disabilities who will turn three during the school year. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements made from the special education funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 30 payroll claims were selected for testing. For 5 of the payroll claims selected for testing, timesheets could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $3,047, to these employees out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $3,047 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls, and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund provided funding to states and school districts to combat the effects of the coronavirus, help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools, and to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation's students. States were required to subgrant a portion of their ESSER allocation to Local Educational Agencies (LEA). Prior to the LEAs receiving their respective subgrants, the LEAs were required to complete an application for ARP ESSER funding, which was submitted to the Indiana Department of Education, the pass-through entity for approval. The application included a district level budget identifying how the LEA intended to spend program funds. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements charged to the ESSER grant funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 40 payroll disbursements were selected for testing. For 1 payroll disbursement selected for testing, the employee's timesheet could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $1,094, out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 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: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $1,094 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund provided funding to states and school districts to combat the effects of the coronavirus, help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools, and to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation's students. States were required to subgrant a portion of their ESSER allocation to Local Educational Agencies (LEA). Prior to the LEAs receiving their respective subgrants, the LEAs were required to complete an application for ARP ESSER funding, which was submitted to the Indiana Department of Education, the pass-through entity for approval. The application included a district level budget identifying how the LEA intended to spend program funds. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements charged to the ESSER grant funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 40 payroll disbursements were selected for testing. For 1 payroll disbursement selected for testing, the employee's timesheet could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $1,094, out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 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: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $1,094 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund provided funding to states and school districts to combat the effects of the coronavirus, help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools, and to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation's students. States were required to subgrant a portion of their ESSER allocation to Local Educational Agencies (LEA). Prior to the LEAs receiving their respective subgrants, the LEAs were required to complete an application for ARP ESSER funding, which was submitted to the Indiana Department of Education, the pass-through entity for approval. The application included a district level budget identifying how the LEA intended to spend program funds. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements charged to the ESSER grant funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 40 payroll disbursements were selected for testing. For 1 payroll disbursement selected for testing, the employee's timesheet could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $1,094, out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 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: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $1,094 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund provided funding to states and school districts to combat the effects of the coronavirus, help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools, and to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation's students. States were required to subgrant a portion of their ESSER allocation to Local Educational Agencies (LEA). Prior to the LEAs receiving their respective subgrants, the LEAs were required to complete an application for ARP ESSER funding, which was submitted to the Indiana Department of Education, the pass-through entity for approval. The application included a district level budget identifying how the LEA intended to spend program funds. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements charged to the ESSER grant funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 40 payroll disbursements were selected for testing. For 1 payroll disbursement selected for testing, the employee's timesheet could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $1,094, out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 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: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $1,094 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund provided funding to states and school districts to combat the effects of the coronavirus, help safely reopen and sustain the safe operation of schools, and to address the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the nation's students. States were required to subgrant a portion of their ESSER allocation to Local Educational Agencies (LEA). Prior to the LEAs receiving their respective subgrants, the LEAs were required to complete an application for ARP ESSER funding, which was submitted to the Indiana Department of Education, the pass-through entity for approval. The application included a district level budget identifying how the LEA intended to spend program funds. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place over payroll disbursements charged to the ESSER grant funds. Payroll disbursements were paid without evidence that the detailed report of payroll disbursements was reviewed and approved by another person not involved in the original payroll process. Additionally, a sample of 40 payroll disbursements were selected for testing. For 1 payroll disbursement selected for testing, the employee's timesheet could not be provided. As such, we could not substantiate the amount paid, $1,094, out of the grant funds. This amount was considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 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: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect costs activity. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll charges could not be substantiated. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $1,094 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are adequately documented. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 MADISON-GRANT UNITED SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster - 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: 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, 21619-054-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency 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 awards 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 200.403 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...." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, it could not be determined if each school spent their required earmarking dollars. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Wabash Miami Area Programs for Exceptional Children (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054- PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. The non-public school share funds for all member schools were comingled and the aggregate amount of expenditures was then allocated to the member schools on a percentage basis. These allocations were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify which expenditures were for each school in order to verify the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The School Corporation’s minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for grant awards 20611-054-PN01 and 21611-054-PN01 was $1,643 and $7,941, respectively. The School Corporation did not have any minimum, nonpublic earmarking requirement for the 20619-054-PN01 and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-054-PN01, 20619-054-PN01, 21611-054-PN01, and 21619-054-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-005 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): 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, 21619-009-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Exceptional Children's Co-op (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. There was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditure for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, and 21619-009-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, and 21619-009-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 200.403 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 A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, non-public proportionate share expenditures per member school could not be determined. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-005 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): 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, 21619-009-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Exceptional Children's Co-op (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. There was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditure for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, and 21619-009-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 20611-009-PN01, 21611-009-PN01, and 21619-009-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 26 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 200.403 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 A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, non-public proportionate share expenditures per member school could not be determined. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 21611-009-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Exceptional Children's Co-op (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its member schools. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school corporation, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. There was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure the required nonpublic proportionate share was met. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditure for nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school corporation. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 PIKE COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-009-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member school corporations. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the nonpublic school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per grant award was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to 2021-2022 for the 21611-009-PN01 grant award. 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 200.403 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 A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 PIKE COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures per member school could not be determined. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure Non-Public Proportionate Share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22
FINDING 2023-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: During testing of vendor disbursements for the CNC program, we identified 9 disbursements in a sample of 60, for which there was no evidence of a formal documented review of the disbursement taking place prior to the disbursement. Additionally, during testing of CNC payroll disbursements, we selected 8 pay periods for controls testing and noted that none of the 8 pay periods had proof of a formal review of the payroll distribution prior to remittance. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: During testing of vendor disbursements for the CNC program, we identified 9 disbursements in a sample of 60, for which there was no evidence of a formal documented review of the disbursement taking place prior to the disbursement. Additionally, during testing of CNC payroll disbursements, we selected 8 pay periods for controls testing and noted that none of the 8 pay periods had proof of a formal review of the payroll distribution prior to remittance. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: During testing of vendor disbursements for the CNC program, we identified 9 disbursements in a sample of 60, for which there was no evidence of a formal documented review of the disbursement taking place prior to the disbursement. Additionally, during testing of CNC payroll disbursements, we selected 8 pay periods for controls testing and noted that none of the 8 pay periods had proof of a formal review of the payroll distribution prior to remittance. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Noncompliance Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There was $2,882 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During our testing of the School Corporation’s compliance with the allowable costs requirements for CNC, we noted the following exceptions in our testing of 120 disbursements (60 vendor and 60 payroll): 1. The School Corporation paid $233 of sales tax across three vendor food purchases. 2. For two employee payroll selections, we were unable to trace their rate of pay to a Board approved wage rate ordinance or contract. The total amount paid out to the two employees was $2,635. 3. We identified one employee that the School Corporation incorrectly paid one hour more than what the timecard stated, resulting in an overpayment of $14. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Noncompliance Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There was $2,882 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During our testing of the School Corporation’s compliance with the allowable costs requirements for CNC, we noted the following exceptions in our testing of 120 disbursements (60 vendor and 60 payroll): 1. The School Corporation paid $233 of sales tax across three vendor food purchases. 2. For two employee payroll selections, we were unable to trace their rate of pay to a Board approved wage rate ordinance or contract. The total amount paid out to the two employees was $2,635. 3. We identified one employee that the School Corporation incorrectly paid one hour more than what the timecard stated, resulting in an overpayment of $14. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Noncompliance Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There was $2,882 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During our testing of the School Corporation’s compliance with the allowable costs requirements for CNC, we noted the following exceptions in our testing of 120 disbursements (60 vendor and 60 payroll): 1. The School Corporation paid $233 of sales tax across three vendor food purchases. 2. For two employee payroll selections, we were unable to trace their rate of pay to a Board approved wage rate ordinance or contract. The total amount paid out to the two employees was $2,635. 3. We identified one employee that the School Corporation incorrectly paid one hour more than what the timecard stated, resulting in an overpayment of $14. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance to ensure adjustments for payroll were allowed and in conformance with the cost principles. Adjustments were made to payroll disbursement activity between Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) funds. Support for these adjustments was traced to the School Corporation's records to verify the gross payroll activity was properly moved. One adjustment, totaling $27,824, could not be verified. The supporting documentation for this adjustment exceeded the amount of the transaction. Inquiry with School Corporation officials and review of the documentation determined that the amount transferred was based on the remaining grant budget amounts instead of actual payroll disbursements. The $27,824 is considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance was limited to the item noted above for the S425D200013 grant award. 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 27 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: "The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: . . . (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 A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, a transfer adjustment was made from one Education Stabilization Fund to another without underlying supporting documentation. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $27,824 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are included in the approved budget, are only requested once, and are not retained if received in error. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance to ensure adjustments for payroll were allowed and in conformance with the cost principles. Adjustments were made to payroll disbursement activity between Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) funds. Support for these adjustments was traced to the School Corporation's records to verify the gross payroll activity was properly moved. One adjustment, totaling $27,824, could not be verified. The supporting documentation for this adjustment exceeded the amount of the transaction. Inquiry with School Corporation officials and review of the documentation determined that the amount transferred was based on the remaining grant budget amounts instead of actual payroll disbursements. The $27,824 is considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance was limited to the item noted above for the S425D200013 grant award. 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 27 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: "The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: . . . (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 A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, a transfer adjustment was made from one Education Stabilization Fund to another without underlying supporting documentation. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $27,824 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are included in the approved budget, are only requested once, and are not retained if received in error. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), and AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: Various, including 2205NE5ADM, FFY 2022; 2201NECSES, FFY 2022 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: * * * * (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.405(b) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.405(b) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: All activities which benefit from the non-Federal entity’s indirect (F&A) cost, including unallowable activities and donated services by the non-Federal entity or third parties, will receive an appropriate allocation of indirect costs. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (October 1, 2022) state the following: Internal service funds are dependent upon a reasonable level of working capital reserve to operate from one billing cycle to the next. Charges by an internal service activity to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reasonable level of working capital reserve, in addition to the full recovery of costs, are allowable. A working capital reserve as part of retained earnings of up to 60 calendar days cash expenses for normal operating purposes is considered reasonable. A working capital reserve exceeding 60 calendar days may be approved by the cognizant agency for indirect costs in exceptional cases. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Billing rates used to charge Federal awards must be based on the estimated costs of providing the services, including an estimate of the allocable central service costs. A comparison of the revenues generated by each billed service (including revenues whether or not billed or collected) to the actual allowable costs of the service will be made at least annually and an adjustment will be made for the difference between the revenue and the allowable costs. Neb. Rev Stat. § 81-1120.22 (Cum. Supp. 2022) states the following: The Director of Communications shall develop a system of equitable billings and charges for communications services provided in any consolidated or joint-use system of communications. Such system of charges shall reflect, as nearly as may be practical, the actual share of costs incurred on behalf of or for services to each department, agency, or political subdivision provided communications services. Using agencies shall pay for such services out of appropriated or available funds. Beginning July 1, 2011, all payments shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. Beginning July 1, 2011, all collections for payment of telephone expenses shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. 2 CFR § 200.444(a) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.444(a) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: For states . . . the general costs of government are unallowable . . . . Unallowable costs include: (1) Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Governor of a state . . . . (2) Salaries and other expenses of a state legislature . . . . A good internal control plan requires: • Procedures to ensure rate charges are equitable, reflect actual costs incurred, and are reviewed periodically to ensure charges are appropriate for the services provided. • Adequate documentation is maintained to support both rates charged and the approval of those rates. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of information services and communications costs in developing rates charged by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, the OCIO did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. We also noted the Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of security costs in developing building rental rates, and the Agency’s Materiel Division did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. A similar finding has been noted in prior audits since 2015. Repeat Finding: 2022-017 Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted the following: Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) For 6 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, documentation provided by the division was not adequate to support the rate charged. • Five of the rates selected utilized an employee time allocation spreadsheet prepared by the OCIO. The spreadsheet was prepared by supervisors utilizing an estimate of how much time each year every employee spends on services provided by the division. During testing, it was noted that these estimates are not backed by a time study, nor is a review of actual hours worked on each service completed by the division. • For one rate selected, we identified variances between the total for networking equipment used in the calculation of the rate charged and the totals per the supporting documentation provided, netting to $1,313,693. When asked about the variances, the OCIO was unable to explain why the amounts did not agree. • For one rate tested, the rate included equipment and maintenance costs incurred by the University of Nebraska (University). The fee was related to the network operated and maintained by Network Nebraska (a collaborative aggregation partnership between the OCIO, the University, and the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications commission). The OCIO receipts funds from the services provided to participants on the network. However, it was noted during testing that the OCIO does not pay the University for its portion of costs incurred for this fee. Per documentation provided to support the calculation of the rate charged, the University incurs $582,049 of the total annual costs of $788,510. For 8 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, the rate charged was not reasonable or was improper. • For the six rates previously mentioned above, we were unable to determine if the rate was proper due to the lack of supporting documentation. • For one rate tested, we noted that actual costs incurred for the service provided recalculated to 40 cents per unit. The OCIO charged 22 cents per unit for the service. Total units sold for the service in calendar year 2022 were 39,348,448, resulting in an expected loss of $7,165,169. • For one rate tested, we noted that the rate calculation included employee salaries as a base for costs incurred. Per the calculation, the OCIO utilized salaries that were effective as of January 1, 2018. We compared the hourly compensation for a sample of employees at January 1, 2018, and as of July 1, 2021. During this period, we noted an average pay increase of 9.1% for the employees selected; thus, the rate charged is inappropriate per the actual costs incurred for providing the service. For 3 of 15 OCIO receipts tested, documentation provided was not adequate to support the rate charged. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the OCIO did not charge from an outside communications provider at the same rate that was shown on the invoice from the provider. These rates were “Re-rated” by the OCIO and then charged to the agency. The OCIO could not provide support for how the re-rates were determined. The APA selected seven rates from the OCIO billing to trace to support, and five of those rates could not be traced back to the provider invoice. Of the total payment of $116,175, $11,397 was charged at a rate that could not be traced to support. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the amount charged for a monthly Supreme Court retainer fee of $56,250 is determined by a rate calculated by the OCIO, but the OCIO could not provide support for the amounts used in the calculation. • For one receipt tested, $9,057 was charged for IT Support. This was based on an employee’s annual salary being paid 90% by the agency and 10% by the OCIO. The OCIO could not provide supporting documentation for how the 90/10 split was determined. In addition to the testing mentioned previously, we asked the OCIO how rates are calculated and what procedures are performed to ensure that the rates are appropriate. Most of the rates selected for testing were last updated in 2020. The staff that created these rates are no longer with the OCIO due to turnover. The OCIO reviews each rate on a yearly basis to determine if the amount charged is appropriate based on actual costs incurred. However, no documentation on the individual rate setting processes was developed or maintained when the rates were initially created. The APA reviewed the OCIO’s fund balances and found them to be compliant with Federal regulations. However, because some rates charged are improper or inadequately supported, there is a risk of some Federal programs being overcharged and some being undercharged. The OCIO receipted $36,684,244 in Federal dollars for services performed for Federal programs. Of this amount, $16,480,956 was charged to Medicaid, and $4,597,226 was charged to Child Support Enforcement. Building Division The rental rate charged to agencies for building space includes an allocation for indirect administrative costs, grounds keeping, security, and energy management. We noted that security costs were allocated for neither the Capitol nor the Governor’s residence, even though security is provided at those locations. Because those locations were not allocated any security costs, Federal programs could be overcharged. Additionally, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government and, therefore, not allowable. The fiscal year 2023 indirect allocations for security were $785,709. Print Shop As noted in prior audits, the Print Shop lacked adequate support for service rates charged. The Agency was in the process of developing new rates using a new methodology, but no changes were made for fiscal year 2023. Receipts from sales for fiscal year 2023 totaled $3,058,910. Cause: Inadequate procedures. Per the Agency, the methodology used to allocate the security allocation is based on a management decision; however, management cannot simply choose to disregard Federal regulations. Effect: When information services and communications costs are not allocated to all agencies in an equitable manner, there is an increased risk that Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Additionally, without adequate controls and procedures to ensure rates are equitable and based on actual costs, there is an increased risk that Federal programs or State agencies will be overcharged for services. When security costs are not allocated to all buildings in an equitable manner, Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its allocation of information and communications costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services. Additionally, we recommend the Agency maintain adequate documentation to support charges and ensure rates are equitable and reflect the actual costs incurred for services. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that published rates are the actual rates charged. Lastly, we recommend the Agency review its allocation of security costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services, in accordance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The OCIO agrees with the findings as identified by the APA. The Building and Grounds security allocation is based on a management business decision. The Print Shop lacked the data needed to substantiate published rates at the individual service line level. In response to prior findings, the Print Shop purchased a Cost Rate Advisor license to support future rate setting methodology at the individual service line level. That tool is currently being utilized to build Print Shop rates for the fiscal year 2026 - 2027 biennium. APA Response: As noted above, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government; therefore, despite any management business decision, such costs are not allowable.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), 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. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), and AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: Various, including 2205NE5ADM, FFY 2022; 2201NECSES, FFY 2022 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: * * * * (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.405(b) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.405(b) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: All activities which benefit from the non-Federal entity’s indirect (F&A) cost, including unallowable activities and donated services by the non-Federal entity or third parties, will receive an appropriate allocation of indirect costs. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (October 1, 2022) state the following: Internal service funds are dependent upon a reasonable level of working capital reserve to operate from one billing cycle to the next. Charges by an internal service activity to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reasonable level of working capital reserve, in addition to the full recovery of costs, are allowable. A working capital reserve as part of retained earnings of up to 60 calendar days cash expenses for normal operating purposes is considered reasonable. A working capital reserve exceeding 60 calendar days may be approved by the cognizant agency for indirect costs in exceptional cases. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Billing rates used to charge Federal awards must be based on the estimated costs of providing the services, including an estimate of the allocable central service costs. A comparison of the revenues generated by each billed service (including revenues whether or not billed or collected) to the actual allowable costs of the service will be made at least annually and an adjustment will be made for the difference between the revenue and the allowable costs. Neb. Rev Stat. § 81-1120.22 (Cum. Supp. 2022) states the following: The Director of Communications shall develop a system of equitable billings and charges for communications services provided in any consolidated or joint-use system of communications. Such system of charges shall reflect, as nearly as may be practical, the actual share of costs incurred on behalf of or for services to each department, agency, or political subdivision provided communications services. Using agencies shall pay for such services out of appropriated or available funds. Beginning July 1, 2011, all payments shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. Beginning July 1, 2011, all collections for payment of telephone expenses shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. 2 CFR § 200.444(a) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.444(a) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: For states . . . the general costs of government are unallowable . . . . Unallowable costs include: (1) Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Governor of a state . . . . (2) Salaries and other expenses of a state legislature . . . . A good internal control plan requires: • Procedures to ensure rate charges are equitable, reflect actual costs incurred, and are reviewed periodically to ensure charges are appropriate for the services provided. • Adequate documentation is maintained to support both rates charged and the approval of those rates. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of information services and communications costs in developing rates charged by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, the OCIO did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. We also noted the Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of security costs in developing building rental rates, and the Agency’s Materiel Division did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. A similar finding has been noted in prior audits since 2015. Repeat Finding: 2022-017 Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted the following: Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) For 6 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, documentation provided by the division was not adequate to support the rate charged. • Five of the rates selected utilized an employee time allocation spreadsheet prepared by the OCIO. The spreadsheet was prepared by supervisors utilizing an estimate of how much time each year every employee spends on services provided by the division. During testing, it was noted that these estimates are not backed by a time study, nor is a review of actual hours worked on each service completed by the division. • For one rate selected, we identified variances between the total for networking equipment used in the calculation of the rate charged and the totals per the supporting documentation provided, netting to $1,313,693. When asked about the variances, the OCIO was unable to explain why the amounts did not agree. • For one rate tested, the rate included equipment and maintenance costs incurred by the University of Nebraska (University). The fee was related to the network operated and maintained by Network Nebraska (a collaborative aggregation partnership between the OCIO, the University, and the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications commission). The OCIO receipts funds from the services provided to participants on the network. However, it was noted during testing that the OCIO does not pay the University for its portion of costs incurred for this fee. Per documentation provided to support the calculation of the rate charged, the University incurs $582,049 of the total annual costs of $788,510. For 8 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, the rate charged was not reasonable or was improper. • For the six rates previously mentioned above, we were unable to determine if the rate was proper due to the lack of supporting documentation. • For one rate tested, we noted that actual costs incurred for the service provided recalculated to 40 cents per unit. The OCIO charged 22 cents per unit for the service. Total units sold for the service in calendar year 2022 were 39,348,448, resulting in an expected loss of $7,165,169. • For one rate tested, we noted that the rate calculation included employee salaries as a base for costs incurred. Per the calculation, the OCIO utilized salaries that were effective as of January 1, 2018. We compared the hourly compensation for a sample of employees at January 1, 2018, and as of July 1, 2021. During this period, we noted an average pay increase of 9.1% for the employees selected; thus, the rate charged is inappropriate per the actual costs incurred for providing the service. For 3 of 15 OCIO receipts tested, documentation provided was not adequate to support the rate charged. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the OCIO did not charge from an outside communications provider at the same rate that was shown on the invoice from the provider. These rates were “Re-rated” by the OCIO and then charged to the agency. The OCIO could not provide support for how the re-rates were determined. The APA selected seven rates from the OCIO billing to trace to support, and five of those rates could not be traced back to the provider invoice. Of the total payment of $116,175, $11,397 was charged at a rate that could not be traced to support. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the amount charged for a monthly Supreme Court retainer fee of $56,250 is determined by a rate calculated by the OCIO, but the OCIO could not provide support for the amounts used in the calculation. • For one receipt tested, $9,057 was charged for IT Support. This was based on an employee’s annual salary being paid 90% by the agency and 10% by the OCIO. The OCIO could not provide supporting documentation for how the 90/10 split was determined. In addition to the testing mentioned previously, we asked the OCIO how rates are calculated and what procedures are performed to ensure that the rates are appropriate. Most of the rates selected for testing were last updated in 2020. The staff that created these rates are no longer with the OCIO due to turnover. The OCIO reviews each rate on a yearly basis to determine if the amount charged is appropriate based on actual costs incurred. However, no documentation on the individual rate setting processes was developed or maintained when the rates were initially created. The APA reviewed the OCIO’s fund balances and found them to be compliant with Federal regulations. However, because some rates charged are improper or inadequately supported, there is a risk of some Federal programs being overcharged and some being undercharged. The OCIO receipted $36,684,244 in Federal dollars for services performed for Federal programs. Of this amount, $16,480,956 was charged to Medicaid, and $4,597,226 was charged to Child Support Enforcement. Building Division The rental rate charged to agencies for building space includes an allocation for indirect administrative costs, grounds keeping, security, and energy management. We noted that security costs were allocated for neither the Capitol nor the Governor’s residence, even though security is provided at those locations. Because those locations were not allocated any security costs, Federal programs could be overcharged. Additionally, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government and, therefore, not allowable. The fiscal year 2023 indirect allocations for security were $785,709. Print Shop As noted in prior audits, the Print Shop lacked adequate support for service rates charged. The Agency was in the process of developing new rates using a new methodology, but no changes were made for fiscal year 2023. Receipts from sales for fiscal year 2023 totaled $3,058,910. Cause: Inadequate procedures. Per the Agency, the methodology used to allocate the security allocation is based on a management decision; however, management cannot simply choose to disregard Federal regulations. Effect: When information services and communications costs are not allocated to all agencies in an equitable manner, there is an increased risk that Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Additionally, without adequate controls and procedures to ensure rates are equitable and based on actual costs, there is an increased risk that Federal programs or State agencies will be overcharged for services. When security costs are not allocated to all buildings in an equitable manner, Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its allocation of information and communications costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services. Additionally, we recommend the Agency maintain adequate documentation to support charges and ensure rates are equitable and reflect the actual costs incurred for services. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that published rates are the actual rates charged. Lastly, we recommend the Agency review its allocation of security costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services, in accordance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The OCIO agrees with the findings as identified by the APA. The Building and Grounds security allocation is based on a management business decision. The Print Shop lacked the data needed to substantiate published rates at the individual service line level. In response to prior findings, the Print Shop purchased a Cost Rate Advisor license to support future rate setting methodology at the individual service line level. That tool is currently being utilized to build Print Shop rates for the fiscal year 2026 - 2027 biennium. APA Response: As noted above, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government; therefore, despite any management business decision, such costs are not allowable.