Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Assistance Listing Number: 93.959 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 4512-9069 – 2023 Pass-Through Agency: Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Department of Public Health Pass-Through Number(s): SUBABUSETSSFY2300000702 Award Period: July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Period of Performance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h) states a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: Internal controls were not in place to ensure that grant expenses charged to the grant were during the approved federal award's period of performance. Questioned costs: None reportable. Context: For 7 of the 8 transactions tested, we identified the Commission charged expenditures to the grant that were incurred outside of the period of performance, prior to the start date of the grant. Cause: Procedures were not in place to ensure expenditures charged to the grant were incurred during the period of performance. Effect: The expenditures incurred before the period of performance are subject to disallowance and are considered questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend procedures be implemented to ensure that all costs charged to the grant are incurred within the grant period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Assistance Listing Number: 93.959 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 4512-9069 – 2023 Pass-Through Agency: Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Department of Public Health Pass-Through Number(s): SUBABUSETSSFY2300000702 Award Period: July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Period of Performance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h) states a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: Internal controls were not in place to ensure that grant expenses charged to the grant were during the approved federal award's period of performance. Questioned costs: None reportable. Context: For 7 of the 8 transactions tested, we identified the Commission charged expenditures to the grant that were incurred outside of the period of performance, prior to the start date of the grant. Cause: Procedures were not in place to ensure expenditures charged to the grant were incurred during the period of performance. Effect: The expenditures incurred before the period of performance are subject to disallowance and are considered questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend procedures be implemented to ensure that all costs charged to the grant are incurred within the grant period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Assistance Listing Number: 93.959 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 4512-9069 – 2023 Pass-Through Agency: Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Department of Public Health Pass-Through Number(s): SUBABUSETSSFY2300000702 Award Period: July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Period of Performance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h) states a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: Internal controls were not in place to ensure that grant expenses charged to the grant were during the approved federal award's period of performance. Questioned costs: None reportable. Context: For 7 of the 8 transactions tested, we identified the Commission charged expenditures to the grant that were incurred outside of the period of performance, prior to the start date of the grant. Cause: Procedures were not in place to ensure expenditures charged to the grant were incurred during the period of performance. Effect: The expenditures incurred before the period of performance are subject to disallowance and are considered questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend procedures be implemented to ensure that all costs charged to the grant are incurred within the grant period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Assistance Listing Number: 93.959 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 4512-9069 – 2023 Pass-Through Agency: Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Department of Public Health Pass-Through Number(s): SUBABUSETSSFY2300000702 Award Period: July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Period of Performance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h) states a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: Internal controls were not in place to ensure that grant expenses charged to the grant were during the approved federal award's period of performance. Questioned costs: None reportable. Context: For 7 of the 8 transactions tested, we identified the Commission charged expenditures to the grant that were incurred outside of the period of performance, prior to the start date of the grant. Cause: Procedures were not in place to ensure expenditures charged to the grant were incurred during the period of performance. Effect: The expenditures incurred before the period of performance are subject to disallowance and are considered questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend procedures be implemented to ensure that all costs charged to the grant are incurred within the grant period of performance. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (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 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. 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 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 nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures 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 2023-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (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 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. 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 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 nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures 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 2023-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (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 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. 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 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 nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures 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 2023-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, 22619-007-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-003. Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Daviess-Martin Special Education Cooperative (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 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. 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 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 nonpublic school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure nonpublic school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were then determined by applying the budgeted percentage for nonpublic school expenditures to the total expenditures. These were the amounts reported to the IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant awards was expended and properly reported to the IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 21611-007-PN01, 22611-007-PN01, and 22619-007-PN01 grant awards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. 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. 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. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 WASHINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, INC. SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 expenditures charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenditures 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 2023-003 Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Special Tests and Provisions Identification of the federal program: Federal Grantor: United States Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Grantors: State of Missouri, State Emergency Management Agency Arkansas Division of Emergency Management Assistance Listing No.: 97.036, COVID-19 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (FEMA) Pass-Through Award Numbers and Award Periods: Project# 185883 P/W# 529 01/20/2020–09/14/2020 Project# 699963 P/W# 624 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699667 P/W# 233 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699670 P/W# 211 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding internal control: “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).” As described in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 200.333, financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding the factors affecting the allowability of costs: “Except where otherwise authorized by statue, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented.” Condition: Adequate documentation was not retained to support the average unit cost applied to COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) inventory usage charged to the FEMA program as Force Account Material (FAM) costs. In addition, for 12 of 40 non-FAM costs (including purchased equipment, purchased supplies, and rental equipment) charged to the program, we noted adequate documentation was not retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. Cause: Management did not have sufficiently designed internal controls in place over the review and approval of average unit costs applied to FAM usage charged to the FEMA program. In addition, for 11 non-FAM (purchased equipment) transactions from fiscal year 2020 charged to the FEMA program, expenditure approvals were maintained in a legacy general ledger system and upon migration to the current general ledger system, the approval trail was not retained. For one other non-FAM (purchased equipment) transaction from fiscal year 2022 charged to the FEMA program, the required level of approvals of the purchase-card transaction was not retained. Effect or potential effect: For FAM costs, Mercy Health is not in compliance with the general criteria of maintaining adequate documentation that supports the average unit costs used in the calculation and determination of the costs charged to the federal program. For non-FAM costs, Mercy Health may not be compliant with the allowability of costs requirements of the FEMA program. Questioned costs: $45 – Assistance Listing No. 97.036 (COVID-19). Context: We sampled 40 FAM costs (totaling $2,826 in federal expenditures) and agreed the PPE inventory item’s usage to supporting requisition documentation. In addition, we obtained the external vendor invoice for the purchase of the PPE inventory item immediately prior to the usage of the PPE inventory item. However, for all 40 sampled FAM costs, we could not verify the average unit cost that is used in determining the amount charged to the FEMA program. The net overstatement of the costs based on the average unit cost for these 40 sampled FAM costs in comparison to the external vendor invoices was $45. In addition, we sampled 40 non-FAM costs (totaling $218,110 in federal expenditures) and noted that 12 purchased equipment transactions (totaling $182,048 in federal expenditures) did not have support retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. FAM costs and non-FAM costs represent 71% and 29%, respectively, of total federal expenditures for the FEMA program of $3,383,897 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: The finding is not a repeat finding from the prior year. Recommendation: Management should design and implement effective internal controls over the review and approval of all costs charged to the FEMA program. Views of Responsible Officials: Mercy Health has a system to calculate average cost of inventory items. We rely on this system, but it was not tested as part of compliance. In addition, Mercy Health has a robust capital approval process (for all equipment) and financial approval thresholds. All COVID purchases were logged in the capital system (VFA) and approvals were documented. During this time, we changed approval systems from VFA to Strata. We will ensure all capital is reviewed and approved in Strata going forward.
Finding 2023-003 Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Special Tests and Provisions Identification of the federal program: Federal Grantor: United States Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Grantors: State of Missouri, State Emergency Management Agency Arkansas Division of Emergency Management Assistance Listing No.: 97.036, COVID-19 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (FEMA) Pass-Through Award Numbers and Award Periods: Project# 185883 P/W# 529 01/20/2020–09/14/2020 Project# 699963 P/W# 624 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699667 P/W# 233 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699670 P/W# 211 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding internal control: “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).” As described in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 200.333, financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding the factors affecting the allowability of costs: “Except where otherwise authorized by statue, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented.” Condition: Adequate documentation was not retained to support the average unit cost applied to COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) inventory usage charged to the FEMA program as Force Account Material (FAM) costs. In addition, for 12 of 40 non-FAM costs (including purchased equipment, purchased supplies, and rental equipment) charged to the program, we noted adequate documentation was not retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. Cause: Management did not have sufficiently designed internal controls in place over the review and approval of average unit costs applied to FAM usage charged to the FEMA program. In addition, for 11 non-FAM (purchased equipment) transactions from fiscal year 2020 charged to the FEMA program, expenditure approvals were maintained in a legacy general ledger system and upon migration to the current general ledger system, the approval trail was not retained. For one other non-FAM (purchased equipment) transaction from fiscal year 2022 charged to the FEMA program, the required level of approvals of the purchase-card transaction was not retained. Effect or potential effect: For FAM costs, Mercy Health is not in compliance with the general criteria of maintaining adequate documentation that supports the average unit costs used in the calculation and determination of the costs charged to the federal program. For non-FAM costs, Mercy Health may not be compliant with the allowability of costs requirements of the FEMA program. Questioned costs: $45 – Assistance Listing No. 97.036 (COVID-19). Context: We sampled 40 FAM costs (totaling $2,826 in federal expenditures) and agreed the PPE inventory item’s usage to supporting requisition documentation. In addition, we obtained the external vendor invoice for the purchase of the PPE inventory item immediately prior to the usage of the PPE inventory item. However, for all 40 sampled FAM costs, we could not verify the average unit cost that is used in determining the amount charged to the FEMA program. The net overstatement of the costs based on the average unit cost for these 40 sampled FAM costs in comparison to the external vendor invoices was $45. In addition, we sampled 40 non-FAM costs (totaling $218,110 in federal expenditures) and noted that 12 purchased equipment transactions (totaling $182,048 in federal expenditures) did not have support retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. FAM costs and non-FAM costs represent 71% and 29%, respectively, of total federal expenditures for the FEMA program of $3,383,897 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: The finding is not a repeat finding from the prior year. Recommendation: Management should design and implement effective internal controls over the review and approval of all costs charged to the FEMA program. Views of Responsible Officials: Mercy Health has a system to calculate average cost of inventory items. We rely on this system, but it was not tested as part of compliance. In addition, Mercy Health has a robust capital approval process (for all equipment) and financial approval thresholds. All COVID purchases were logged in the capital system (VFA) and approvals were documented. During this time, we changed approval systems from VFA to Strata. We will ensure all capital is reviewed and approved in Strata going forward.
Finding 2023-003 Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Special Tests and Provisions Identification of the federal program: Federal Grantor: United States Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Grantors: State of Missouri, State Emergency Management Agency Arkansas Division of Emergency Management Assistance Listing No.: 97.036, COVID-19 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (FEMA) Pass-Through Award Numbers and Award Periods: Project# 185883 P/W# 529 01/20/2020–09/14/2020 Project# 699963 P/W# 624 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699667 P/W# 233 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699670 P/W# 211 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding internal control: “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).” As described in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 200.333, financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding the factors affecting the allowability of costs: “Except where otherwise authorized by statue, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented.” Condition: Adequate documentation was not retained to support the average unit cost applied to COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) inventory usage charged to the FEMA program as Force Account Material (FAM) costs. In addition, for 12 of 40 non-FAM costs (including purchased equipment, purchased supplies, and rental equipment) charged to the program, we noted adequate documentation was not retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. Cause: Management did not have sufficiently designed internal controls in place over the review and approval of average unit costs applied to FAM usage charged to the FEMA program. In addition, for 11 non-FAM (purchased equipment) transactions from fiscal year 2020 charged to the FEMA program, expenditure approvals were maintained in a legacy general ledger system and upon migration to the current general ledger system, the approval trail was not retained. For one other non-FAM (purchased equipment) transaction from fiscal year 2022 charged to the FEMA program, the required level of approvals of the purchase-card transaction was not retained. Effect or potential effect: For FAM costs, Mercy Health is not in compliance with the general criteria of maintaining adequate documentation that supports the average unit costs used in the calculation and determination of the costs charged to the federal program. For non-FAM costs, Mercy Health may not be compliant with the allowability of costs requirements of the FEMA program. Questioned costs: $45 – Assistance Listing No. 97.036 (COVID-19). Context: We sampled 40 FAM costs (totaling $2,826 in federal expenditures) and agreed the PPE inventory item’s usage to supporting requisition documentation. In addition, we obtained the external vendor invoice for the purchase of the PPE inventory item immediately prior to the usage of the PPE inventory item. However, for all 40 sampled FAM costs, we could not verify the average unit cost that is used in determining the amount charged to the FEMA program. The net overstatement of the costs based on the average unit cost for these 40 sampled FAM costs in comparison to the external vendor invoices was $45. In addition, we sampled 40 non-FAM costs (totaling $218,110 in federal expenditures) and noted that 12 purchased equipment transactions (totaling $182,048 in federal expenditures) did not have support retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. FAM costs and non-FAM costs represent 71% and 29%, respectively, of total federal expenditures for the FEMA program of $3,383,897 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: The finding is not a repeat finding from the prior year. Recommendation: Management should design and implement effective internal controls over the review and approval of all costs charged to the FEMA program. Views of Responsible Officials: Mercy Health has a system to calculate average cost of inventory items. We rely on this system, but it was not tested as part of compliance. In addition, Mercy Health has a robust capital approval process (for all equipment) and financial approval thresholds. All COVID purchases were logged in the capital system (VFA) and approvals were documented. During this time, we changed approval systems from VFA to Strata. We will ensure all capital is reviewed and approved in Strata going forward.
Finding 2023-003 Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Special Tests and Provisions Identification of the federal program: Federal Grantor: United States Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Grantors: State of Missouri, State Emergency Management Agency Arkansas Division of Emergency Management Assistance Listing No.: 97.036, COVID-19 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) (FEMA) Pass-Through Award Numbers and Award Periods: Project# 185883 P/W# 529 01/20/2020–09/14/2020 Project# 699963 P/W# 624 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699667 P/W# 233 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Project# 699670 P/W# 211 01/01/2022–07/01/2022 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding internal control: “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).” As described in Title 2 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 200.333, financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three (3) years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 of the Uniform Guidance states the following regarding the factors affecting the allowability of costs: “Except where otherwise authorized by statue, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented.” Condition: Adequate documentation was not retained to support the average unit cost applied to COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) inventory usage charged to the FEMA program as Force Account Material (FAM) costs. In addition, for 12 of 40 non-FAM costs (including purchased equipment, purchased supplies, and rental equipment) charged to the program, we noted adequate documentation was not retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. Cause: Management did not have sufficiently designed internal controls in place over the review and approval of average unit costs applied to FAM usage charged to the FEMA program. In addition, for 11 non-FAM (purchased equipment) transactions from fiscal year 2020 charged to the FEMA program, expenditure approvals were maintained in a legacy general ledger system and upon migration to the current general ledger system, the approval trail was not retained. For one other non-FAM (purchased equipment) transaction from fiscal year 2022 charged to the FEMA program, the required level of approvals of the purchase-card transaction was not retained. Effect or potential effect: For FAM costs, Mercy Health is not in compliance with the general criteria of maintaining adequate documentation that supports the average unit costs used in the calculation and determination of the costs charged to the federal program. For non-FAM costs, Mercy Health may not be compliant with the allowability of costs requirements of the FEMA program. Questioned costs: $45 – Assistance Listing No. 97.036 (COVID-19). Context: We sampled 40 FAM costs (totaling $2,826 in federal expenditures) and agreed the PPE inventory item’s usage to supporting requisition documentation. In addition, we obtained the external vendor invoice for the purchase of the PPE inventory item immediately prior to the usage of the PPE inventory item. However, for all 40 sampled FAM costs, we could not verify the average unit cost that is used in determining the amount charged to the FEMA program. The net overstatement of the costs based on the average unit cost for these 40 sampled FAM costs in comparison to the external vendor invoices was $45. In addition, we sampled 40 non-FAM costs (totaling $218,110 in federal expenditures) and noted that 12 purchased equipment transactions (totaling $182,048 in federal expenditures) did not have support retained to evidence review and approval of the expenditure for allowability. FAM costs and non-FAM costs represent 71% and 29%, respectively, of total federal expenditures for the FEMA program of $3,383,897 for the year ended June 30, 2023. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: The finding is not a repeat finding from the prior year. Recommendation: Management should design and implement effective internal controls over the review and approval of all costs charged to the FEMA program. Views of Responsible Officials: Mercy Health has a system to calculate average cost of inventory items. We rely on this system, but it was not tested as part of compliance. In addition, Mercy Health has a robust capital approval process (for all equipment) and financial approval thresholds. All COVID purchases were logged in the capital system (VFA) and approvals were documented. During this time, we changed approval systems from VFA to Strata. We will ensure all capital is reviewed and approved in Strata going forward.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding No. 2023-001 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Agency and Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ALN Numbers: 93.659, Adoption Assistance Program 93.667, Social Services Block Grant Program Agency and Award: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice CSFA Number: 80.005, Children and Families in Need of Services Program Significant Deficiency/Other Matter Compliance Criteria: The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under federal awards, they must be adequately documented and there must be sufficient documentation. Additionally, CFR Section 200.430 states that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate and allowable. The Florida’s Division of Accounting and Auditing Reference Guide for State Expenditures states that supporting documentation shall be maintained in support of expenditure payment requests for cost reimbursement contracts including that approved timesheets support the hours worked on the project or activity must be kept. Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements, we noted that seven of the 120 payroll expenditures selected for testing did not have a properly approved timecard for the pay period selected. Cause: The Organization’s policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in these instances to obtain approval of timecards prior to payroll being processed to evidence these costs was allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging these costs to a federal program or state financial assistance project. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to confirm the accuracy or completeness of the expense claim as a federal or state financial assistance expenditure. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs as the Organization performed a thorough review and approval of the timecards after they were identified by the auditor. Context: We tested a sample of 120 payroll expense items and found seven exceptions. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review its controls over payroll disbursements to ensure that all employees timecards are approved prior to payroll being processed. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.