FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Noncompliance Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There was $2,882 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During our testing of the School Corporation’s compliance with the allowable costs requirements for CNC, we noted the following exceptions in our testing of 120 disbursements (60 vendor and 60 payroll): 1. The School Corporation paid $233 of sales tax across three vendor food purchases. 2. For two employee payroll selections, we were unable to trace their rate of pay to a Board approved wage rate ordinance or contract. The total amount paid out to the two employees was $2,635. 3. We identified one employee that the School Corporation incorrectly paid one hour more than what the timecard stated, resulting in an overpayment of $14. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) – Noncompliance Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The School Corporation did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the allowable cost requirements. Cause: A proper system of internal control was not designed by management of the School Corporation that included a thorough review of expenditures charged to the grant. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Questioned Costs: There was $2,882 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During our testing of the School Corporation’s compliance with the allowable costs requirements for CNC, we noted the following exceptions in our testing of 120 disbursements (60 vendor and 60 payroll): 1. The School Corporation paid $233 of sales tax across three vendor food purchases. 2. For two employee payroll selections, we were unable to trace their rate of pay to a Board approved wage rate ordinance or contract. The total amount paid out to the two employees was $2,635. 3. We identified one employee that the School Corporation incorrectly paid one hour more than what the timecard stated, resulting in an overpayment of $14. Identification as a repeat finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control to ensure that charges to the grant are formally reviewed for accuracy and allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: For the views of the responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, COVID-19 - National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation entered into a cost reimbursement contract with a food service management company (FSMC). The FSMC incurred costs on behalf of the School Corporation and invoiced the School Corporation for reimbursement of those costs. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls to ensure that program costs incurred by the FSMC were supported by proper documentation and were allowable prior to payment. Due to the lack of internal controls, the following errors were noted: In a test of 44 transactions, 22 transactions (50%) totaling $6,641 did not have proper documentation to support that the expenses were for the benefit of the food service program and in conformance with the cost principles. 1. Of the 5 transactions totaling $764, were for food and supply purchases paid for by the FSMC and then invoiced to the School Corporation for reimbursement. The vendor invoices supporting these purchases could not be provided for audit. 2. Of the 15 transactions totaling $5,532, were for FSMC employee payroll, fringe benefits, stipends, and other miscellaneous expenses. Proper supporting documentation could not be provided for audit for these transactions. 3. Of the 2 transactions, were determined to be unallowable expenses, as noted below: a. An Amazon purchase of $27 was for decorations that were shipped to a home residence. The FSMC stated the decorations were for a ceremony for the opening of the School Corporation's weight room. b. The FSMC purchased Visa gift cards totaling $318 that were gifted to FSMC staff. The items noted above were all considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 7 CFR 210.21(f)(1) states in part: ". . . (ii) (A) The contractor must separately identify for each cost submitted for payment to the school food authority the amount of that cost that is allowable (can be paid from the nonprofit school food service account) and the amount that is unallowable (cannot be paid from the nonprofit school food service account); or INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (B) The contractor must exclude all unallowable costs from its billing documents and certify that only allowable costs are submitted for payment and records have been established that maintain the visibility of unallowable costs, including directly associated costs in manner suitable for contract cost determination and verification. (iii) The contractor's determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with the applicable Departmental and Program regulations and Office of Management and Budget cost circulars; . . . (vi) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the school food authority, the State agency, or the Department." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.445(a) states: "Costs of goods or services for personal use of the non-Federal entity's employees are unallowable regardless of whether the cost is reported as taxable income to the employees." 2 CFR 200.467 states: "Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not implemented by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, required supporting documentation could be provided to verify costs paid to the FSMC were allowable and in conformance with the cost principles. In addition, unallowable costs were paid. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $6,641 were identified as explained in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure all costs are adequately documented and for the benefit of the food service program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance to ensure adjustments for payroll were allowed and in conformance with the cost principles. Adjustments were made to payroll disbursement activity between Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) funds. Support for these adjustments was traced to the School Corporation's records to verify the gross payroll activity was properly moved. One adjustment, totaling $27,824, could not be verified. The supporting documentation for this adjustment exceeded the amount of the transaction. Inquiry with School Corporation officials and review of the documentation determined that the amount transferred was based on the remaining grant budget amounts instead of actual payroll disbursements. The $27,824 is considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance was limited to the item noted above for the S425D200013 grant award. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: "The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: . . . (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, a transfer adjustment was made from one Education Stabilization Fund to another without underlying supporting documentation. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $27,824 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are included in the approved budget, are only requested once, and are not retained if received in error. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance to ensure adjustments for payroll were allowed and in conformance with the cost principles. Adjustments were made to payroll disbursement activity between Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) funds. Support for these adjustments was traced to the School Corporation's records to verify the gross payroll activity was properly moved. One adjustment, totaling $27,824, could not be verified. The supporting documentation for this adjustment exceeded the amount of the transaction. Inquiry with School Corporation officials and review of the documentation determined that the amount transferred was based on the remaining grant budget amounts instead of actual payroll disbursements. The $27,824 is considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance was limited to the item noted above for the S425D200013 grant award. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 27 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.400 states in part: "The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: . . . (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, a transfer adjustment was made from one Education Stabilization Fund to another without underlying supporting documentation. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $27,824 were identified as detailed in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure costs are included in the approved budget, are only requested once, and are not retained if received in error. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 28 LAKE RIDGE SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), and AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: Various, including 2205NE5ADM, FFY 2022; 2201NECSES, FFY 2022 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: * * * * (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.405(b) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.405(b) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: All activities which benefit from the non-Federal entity’s indirect (F&A) cost, including unallowable activities and donated services by the non-Federal entity or third parties, will receive an appropriate allocation of indirect costs. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (October 1, 2022) state the following: Internal service funds are dependent upon a reasonable level of working capital reserve to operate from one billing cycle to the next. Charges by an internal service activity to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reasonable level of working capital reserve, in addition to the full recovery of costs, are allowable. A working capital reserve as part of retained earnings of up to 60 calendar days cash expenses for normal operating purposes is considered reasonable. A working capital reserve exceeding 60 calendar days may be approved by the cognizant agency for indirect costs in exceptional cases. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Billing rates used to charge Federal awards must be based on the estimated costs of providing the services, including an estimate of the allocable central service costs. A comparison of the revenues generated by each billed service (including revenues whether or not billed or collected) to the actual allowable costs of the service will be made at least annually and an adjustment will be made for the difference between the revenue and the allowable costs. Neb. Rev Stat. § 81-1120.22 (Cum. Supp. 2022) states the following: The Director of Communications shall develop a system of equitable billings and charges for communications services provided in any consolidated or joint-use system of communications. Such system of charges shall reflect, as nearly as may be practical, the actual share of costs incurred on behalf of or for services to each department, agency, or political subdivision provided communications services. Using agencies shall pay for such services out of appropriated or available funds. Beginning July 1, 2011, all payments shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. Beginning July 1, 2011, all collections for payment of telephone expenses shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. 2 CFR § 200.444(a) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.444(a) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: For states . . . the general costs of government are unallowable . . . . Unallowable costs include: (1) Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Governor of a state . . . . (2) Salaries and other expenses of a state legislature . . . . A good internal control plan requires: • Procedures to ensure rate charges are equitable, reflect actual costs incurred, and are reviewed periodically to ensure charges are appropriate for the services provided. • Adequate documentation is maintained to support both rates charged and the approval of those rates. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of information services and communications costs in developing rates charged by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, the OCIO did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. We also noted the Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of security costs in developing building rental rates, and the Agency’s Materiel Division did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. A similar finding has been noted in prior audits since 2015. Repeat Finding: 2022-017 Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted the following: Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) For 6 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, documentation provided by the division was not adequate to support the rate charged. • Five of the rates selected utilized an employee time allocation spreadsheet prepared by the OCIO. The spreadsheet was prepared by supervisors utilizing an estimate of how much time each year every employee spends on services provided by the division. During testing, it was noted that these estimates are not backed by a time study, nor is a review of actual hours worked on each service completed by the division. • For one rate selected, we identified variances between the total for networking equipment used in the calculation of the rate charged and the totals per the supporting documentation provided, netting to $1,313,693. When asked about the variances, the OCIO was unable to explain why the amounts did not agree. • For one rate tested, the rate included equipment and maintenance costs incurred by the University of Nebraska (University). The fee was related to the network operated and maintained by Network Nebraska (a collaborative aggregation partnership between the OCIO, the University, and the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications commission). The OCIO receipts funds from the services provided to participants on the network. However, it was noted during testing that the OCIO does not pay the University for its portion of costs incurred for this fee. Per documentation provided to support the calculation of the rate charged, the University incurs $582,049 of the total annual costs of $788,510. For 8 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, the rate charged was not reasonable or was improper. • For the six rates previously mentioned above, we were unable to determine if the rate was proper due to the lack of supporting documentation. • For one rate tested, we noted that actual costs incurred for the service provided recalculated to 40 cents per unit. The OCIO charged 22 cents per unit for the service. Total units sold for the service in calendar year 2022 were 39,348,448, resulting in an expected loss of $7,165,169. • For one rate tested, we noted that the rate calculation included employee salaries as a base for costs incurred. Per the calculation, the OCIO utilized salaries that were effective as of January 1, 2018. We compared the hourly compensation for a sample of employees at January 1, 2018, and as of July 1, 2021. During this period, we noted an average pay increase of 9.1% for the employees selected; thus, the rate charged is inappropriate per the actual costs incurred for providing the service. For 3 of 15 OCIO receipts tested, documentation provided was not adequate to support the rate charged. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the OCIO did not charge from an outside communications provider at the same rate that was shown on the invoice from the provider. These rates were “Re-rated” by the OCIO and then charged to the agency. The OCIO could not provide support for how the re-rates were determined. The APA selected seven rates from the OCIO billing to trace to support, and five of those rates could not be traced back to the provider invoice. Of the total payment of $116,175, $11,397 was charged at a rate that could not be traced to support. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the amount charged for a monthly Supreme Court retainer fee of $56,250 is determined by a rate calculated by the OCIO, but the OCIO could not provide support for the amounts used in the calculation. • For one receipt tested, $9,057 was charged for IT Support. This was based on an employee’s annual salary being paid 90% by the agency and 10% by the OCIO. The OCIO could not provide supporting documentation for how the 90/10 split was determined. In addition to the testing mentioned previously, we asked the OCIO how rates are calculated and what procedures are performed to ensure that the rates are appropriate. Most of the rates selected for testing were last updated in 2020. The staff that created these rates are no longer with the OCIO due to turnover. The OCIO reviews each rate on a yearly basis to determine if the amount charged is appropriate based on actual costs incurred. However, no documentation on the individual rate setting processes was developed or maintained when the rates were initially created. The APA reviewed the OCIO’s fund balances and found them to be compliant with Federal regulations. However, because some rates charged are improper or inadequately supported, there is a risk of some Federal programs being overcharged and some being undercharged. The OCIO receipted $36,684,244 in Federal dollars for services performed for Federal programs. Of this amount, $16,480,956 was charged to Medicaid, and $4,597,226 was charged to Child Support Enforcement. Building Division The rental rate charged to agencies for building space includes an allocation for indirect administrative costs, grounds keeping, security, and energy management. We noted that security costs were allocated for neither the Capitol nor the Governor’s residence, even though security is provided at those locations. Because those locations were not allocated any security costs, Federal programs could be overcharged. Additionally, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government and, therefore, not allowable. The fiscal year 2023 indirect allocations for security were $785,709. Print Shop As noted in prior audits, the Print Shop lacked adequate support for service rates charged. The Agency was in the process of developing new rates using a new methodology, but no changes were made for fiscal year 2023. Receipts from sales for fiscal year 2023 totaled $3,058,910. Cause: Inadequate procedures. Per the Agency, the methodology used to allocate the security allocation is based on a management decision; however, management cannot simply choose to disregard Federal regulations. Effect: When information services and communications costs are not allocated to all agencies in an equitable manner, there is an increased risk that Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Additionally, without adequate controls and procedures to ensure rates are equitable and based on actual costs, there is an increased risk that Federal programs or State agencies will be overcharged for services. When security costs are not allocated to all buildings in an equitable manner, Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its allocation of information and communications costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services. Additionally, we recommend the Agency maintain adequate documentation to support charges and ensure rates are equitable and reflect the actual costs incurred for services. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that published rates are the actual rates charged. Lastly, we recommend the Agency review its allocation of security costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services, in accordance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The OCIO agrees with the findings as identified by the APA. The Building and Grounds security allocation is based on a management business decision. The Print Shop lacked the data needed to substantiate published rates at the individual service line level. In response to prior findings, the Print Shop purchased a Cost Rate Advisor license to support future rate setting methodology at the individual service line level. That tool is currently being utilized to build Print Shop rates for the fiscal year 2026 - 2027 biennium. APA Response: As noted above, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government; therefore, despite any management business decision, such costs are not allowable.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 93.658 - Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 10.561 - State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AL 93.659 - Adoption Assistance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 202323S251443, FFY 2023; 2301NEADPT, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per the CAP’s RMTS Time Study Design/Coding Structure: [P]articipants are asked whether they are working on an activity that is client related. If they select “Yes” to this question, they are asked to identify the Case ID and type of case . . . . Per the CAP’s RMTS Survey Validation: The contractor and the NE DHHS staff review subsample responses to ensure the activity selected matches the description provided. If the activity and description do not match, the participant is notified and the moment is considered invalid. Per the CAP’s RMTS Response Time/Non-Responses: Participants have two (2) calendar days to respond to each moment. The two (2) day response time allows workers who may spend time outside of their office location and away from email the opportunity to respond to the moment before it expires. The two (2) day period is inclusive of calendar hours and not business days . . . . Good internal control and sound accounting practices require procedures to ensure that staff know how to complete accurate random moment time studies, which are used to allocate costs to Federal programs. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure payroll charges were proper. Repeat Finding: 2022-024 Questioned Costs: $55,666 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: The Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) is conducted on an ongoing basis to provide data for the allocations of direct and indirect costs to various programs. The objective is to identify employee efforts directly related to programs administered by the Agency. We tested 55 RMTS surveys and noted 18 errors resulting in questioned costs as follows: • For 10 of 15 surveys tested, the workers erroneously reported they were working on a Foster Care IV-E (Federally funded) case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care Non IV-E; therefore, Foster Care was overcharged. o For two surveys, the cases had previously been IV-E Foster Care cases but were changed to Non IV-E cases the month prior to the surveys submitted by the Child and Family Services Specialists. o For one survey, the worker completed the survey three calendar days after the RMTS was generated and the activity described on the survey form was for the date submitted, not when the RMTS was generated. • For 7 of 19 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) surveys tested, the RMTS survey form appeared to have been completed incorrectly. o For two surveys, the workers selected SNAP; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) and not on SNAP. o For one survey, the worker stated on the survey form they were working on a case activity for SNAP; however, no case file name or identification case number was given to identify what case was being worked. o For three surveys, the workers selected the SNAP program; however, we could not confirm from the documentation on file what the worker was working on, and the questioned costs are unknown. o For one survey, the case worker selected the SNAP program; however, per the case files, the case worker appeared to be working on other programs along with SNAP at the time of the survey. • For one of seven Adoption IV-E surveys tested, the worker erroneously reported that they were working on an Adoption IV-E case when the survey should have been reported as Foster Care IV-E; therefore, Adoption IV-E was overcharged. Total known Federal payment errors, amount tested, error rate (amount of errors/amount tested), total dollars charged via RMTS, and potential dollars at risk (dollar rate multiplied by the population total dollars charged) are summarized below by program: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: The Agency’s training of staff and supervisor reviews of RMTS surveys were not sufficient to ensure the surveys were accurately completed. Effect: Random moment sampling is based on the laws of probability, which state, in essence, that there is a high probability that a relatively small number of random surveys will yield an accurate depiction of the overall characteristics of the population for which the sample was taken. If RMTS surveys are not accurate, there is an increased risk costs will be allocated incorrectly between programs. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that random moment surveys are accurate and adequately reviewed. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: Various, including AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), and AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: Various, including 2205NE5ADM, FFY 2022; 2201NECSES, FFY 2022 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: * * * * (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.405(b) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.405(b) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: All activities which benefit from the non-Federal entity’s indirect (F&A) cost, including unallowable activities and donated services by the non-Federal entity or third parties, will receive an appropriate allocation of indirect costs. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(2), (October 1, 2022) state the following: Internal service funds are dependent upon a reasonable level of working capital reserve to operate from one billing cycle to the next. Charges by an internal service activity to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a reasonable level of working capital reserve, in addition to the full recovery of costs, are allowable. A working capital reserve as part of retained earnings of up to 60 calendar days cash expenses for normal operating purposes is considered reasonable. A working capital reserve exceeding 60 calendar days may be approved by the cognizant agency for indirect costs in exceptional cases. 2 CFR § 200, Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75 Appendix V, subsection (G)(4), (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: Billing rates used to charge Federal awards must be based on the estimated costs of providing the services, including an estimate of the allocable central service costs. A comparison of the revenues generated by each billed service (including revenues whether or not billed or collected) to the actual allowable costs of the service will be made at least annually and an adjustment will be made for the difference between the revenue and the allowable costs. Neb. Rev Stat. § 81-1120.22 (Cum. Supp. 2022) states the following: The Director of Communications shall develop a system of equitable billings and charges for communications services provided in any consolidated or joint-use system of communications. Such system of charges shall reflect, as nearly as may be practical, the actual share of costs incurred on behalf of or for services to each department, agency, or political subdivision provided communications services. Using agencies shall pay for such services out of appropriated or available funds. Beginning July 1, 2011, all payments shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. Beginning July 1, 2011, all collections for payment of telephone expenses shall be credited to the Communications Revolving Fund. 2 CFR § 200.444(a) (January 1, 2023) and 45 CFR § 75.444(a) (October 1, 2022) state, in relevant part, the following: For states . . . the general costs of government are unallowable . . . . Unallowable costs include: (1) Salaries and expenses of the Office of the Governor of a state . . . . (2) Salaries and other expenses of a state legislature . . . . A good internal control plan requires: • Procedures to ensure rate charges are equitable, reflect actual costs incurred, and are reviewed periodically to ensure charges are appropriate for the services provided. • Adequate documentation is maintained to support both rates charged and the approval of those rates. Condition: The Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of information services and communications costs in developing rates charged by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Additionally, the OCIO did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. We also noted the Agency did not have adequate documentation to support the allocation of security costs in developing building rental rates, and the Agency’s Materiel Division did not maintain adequate documentation to support that charges were reasonable, equitable, and consistently applied. A similar finding has been noted in prior audits since 2015. Repeat Finding: 2022-017 Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted the following: Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) For 6 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, documentation provided by the division was not adequate to support the rate charged. • Five of the rates selected utilized an employee time allocation spreadsheet prepared by the OCIO. The spreadsheet was prepared by supervisors utilizing an estimate of how much time each year every employee spends on services provided by the division. During testing, it was noted that these estimates are not backed by a time study, nor is a review of actual hours worked on each service completed by the division. • For one rate selected, we identified variances between the total for networking equipment used in the calculation of the rate charged and the totals per the supporting documentation provided, netting to $1,313,693. When asked about the variances, the OCIO was unable to explain why the amounts did not agree. • For one rate tested, the rate included equipment and maintenance costs incurred by the University of Nebraska (University). The fee was related to the network operated and maintained by Network Nebraska (a collaborative aggregation partnership between the OCIO, the University, and the Nebraska Educational Telecommunications commission). The OCIO receipts funds from the services provided to participants on the network. However, it was noted during testing that the OCIO does not pay the University for its portion of costs incurred for this fee. Per documentation provided to support the calculation of the rate charged, the University incurs $582,049 of the total annual costs of $788,510. For 8 of 14 OCIO rates selected for testing, the rate charged was not reasonable or was improper. • For the six rates previously mentioned above, we were unable to determine if the rate was proper due to the lack of supporting documentation. • For one rate tested, we noted that actual costs incurred for the service provided recalculated to 40 cents per unit. The OCIO charged 22 cents per unit for the service. Total units sold for the service in calendar year 2022 were 39,348,448, resulting in an expected loss of $7,165,169. • For one rate tested, we noted that the rate calculation included employee salaries as a base for costs incurred. Per the calculation, the OCIO utilized salaries that were effective as of January 1, 2018. We compared the hourly compensation for a sample of employees at January 1, 2018, and as of July 1, 2021. During this period, we noted an average pay increase of 9.1% for the employees selected; thus, the rate charged is inappropriate per the actual costs incurred for providing the service. For 3 of 15 OCIO receipts tested, documentation provided was not adequate to support the rate charged. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the OCIO did not charge from an outside communications provider at the same rate that was shown on the invoice from the provider. These rates were “Re-rated” by the OCIO and then charged to the agency. The OCIO could not provide support for how the re-rates were determined. The APA selected seven rates from the OCIO billing to trace to support, and five of those rates could not be traced back to the provider invoice. Of the total payment of $116,175, $11,397 was charged at a rate that could not be traced to support. • For one receipt tested, we noted that the amount charged for a monthly Supreme Court retainer fee of $56,250 is determined by a rate calculated by the OCIO, but the OCIO could not provide support for the amounts used in the calculation. • For one receipt tested, $9,057 was charged for IT Support. This was based on an employee’s annual salary being paid 90% by the agency and 10% by the OCIO. The OCIO could not provide supporting documentation for how the 90/10 split was determined. In addition to the testing mentioned previously, we asked the OCIO how rates are calculated and what procedures are performed to ensure that the rates are appropriate. Most of the rates selected for testing were last updated in 2020. The staff that created these rates are no longer with the OCIO due to turnover. The OCIO reviews each rate on a yearly basis to determine if the amount charged is appropriate based on actual costs incurred. However, no documentation on the individual rate setting processes was developed or maintained when the rates were initially created. The APA reviewed the OCIO’s fund balances and found them to be compliant with Federal regulations. However, because some rates charged are improper or inadequately supported, there is a risk of some Federal programs being overcharged and some being undercharged. The OCIO receipted $36,684,244 in Federal dollars for services performed for Federal programs. Of this amount, $16,480,956 was charged to Medicaid, and $4,597,226 was charged to Child Support Enforcement. Building Division The rental rate charged to agencies for building space includes an allocation for indirect administrative costs, grounds keeping, security, and energy management. We noted that security costs were allocated for neither the Capitol nor the Governor’s residence, even though security is provided at those locations. Because those locations were not allocated any security costs, Federal programs could be overcharged. Additionally, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government and, therefore, not allowable. The fiscal year 2023 indirect allocations for security were $785,709. Print Shop As noted in prior audits, the Print Shop lacked adequate support for service rates charged. The Agency was in the process of developing new rates using a new methodology, but no changes were made for fiscal year 2023. Receipts from sales for fiscal year 2023 totaled $3,058,910. Cause: Inadequate procedures. Per the Agency, the methodology used to allocate the security allocation is based on a management decision; however, management cannot simply choose to disregard Federal regulations. Effect: When information services and communications costs are not allocated to all agencies in an equitable manner, there is an increased risk that Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Additionally, without adequate controls and procedures to ensure rates are equitable and based on actual costs, there is an increased risk that Federal programs or State agencies will be overcharged for services. When security costs are not allocated to all buildings in an equitable manner, Federal programs will not be charged in accordance with Federal cost principles. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its allocation of information and communications costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services. Additionally, we recommend the Agency maintain adequate documentation to support charges and ensure rates are equitable and reflect the actual costs incurred for services. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that published rates are the actual rates charged. Lastly, we recommend the Agency review its allocation of security costs to ensure that the costs are allocated in an equitable manner to all activities that benefit from the services, in accordance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The OCIO agrees with the findings as identified by the APA. The Building and Grounds security allocation is based on a management business decision. The Print Shop lacked the data needed to substantiate published rates at the individual service line level. In response to prior findings, the Print Shop purchased a Cost Rate Advisor license to support future rate setting methodology at the individual service line level. That tool is currently being utilized to build Print Shop rates for the fiscal year 2026 - 2027 biennium. APA Response: As noted above, security costs for the Capitol and the Governor’s residence are general costs of government; therefore, despite any management business decision, such costs are not allowable.
Program: AL 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; AL 93.563 – Child Support Enforcement; AL 93.568 – Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP); AL 93.575 – Child Care and Development Block Grant; AL 93.658 – Foster Care Title IV-E; AL 93.778 – Medical Assistance Program; AL 10.561 – State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Grant Number & Year: 2001NETANF, FFY 2020; 2301NECSES, FFY 2023; 2301NELIEA, FFY 2023; 2301NECCDD, FFY 2023; 2301NEFOST, FFY 2023; 2305NE5ADM, FFY 2023; 233NE406S2514, FFY 2023 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria: 45 CFR § 75.405(a) (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.405 (January 1, 2023) state, in part, the following: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. 45 CFR § 75.403 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) provide the following, in relevant part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 75.300 through 75.309. Per 45 CFR § 75.303 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023), The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Title 45 CFR § 75.302 (October 1, 2022) and 2 CFR § 200.302 (January 1, 2023) require financial management systems of the State sufficient to permit preparation of required reports and permit the tracing of funds to expenditures adequate to establish the use of these funds were in accordance with applicable regulations. EnterpriseOne is the official accounting system for the State of Nebraska, and all expenditures are generated from it. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that amounts charged to Federal funds are proper. Condition: Procedures to ensure journal entries and adjustments to the Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP) were not adequate, resulting in multiple Federal programs being overcharged. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $581,496 known See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Statistical Sample: No Context: Each quarter, as the PACAP is prepared, the Agency makes multiple adjustments for costs that either were charged to Federal funds and should not have been, or costs that were not charged to Federal funds but are claimable to a Federal grant. We tested five adjustments between two quarters. One adjustment tested for the quarter ended December 31, 2022, was recorded to charge the Foster Care grant for allowable costs incurred by the Foster Care Review Office (FCRO), a separate agency. The amounts provided by FCRO erroneously included payroll charges from a previous quarter, inflating the amount charged. The FCRO later caught the mistake and adjusted the internal spreadsheet but did not alert the Agency to the error, so a correcting adjustment was never made to the PACAP. The amount charged was $353,984; however, the adjustment should have been $212,725, a difference of $141,259. Foster Care is matched at 50%, so the grant was overcharged $70,629, which are questioned costs. Due to this error, we reviewed a second Foster Care adjustment for the quarter ending March 31, 2023, and noted the Agency’s calculation included amounts for a State funded program that should have been removed, resulting in the grant being overcharged an additional $1,561. We also tested six journal entries that moved costs between cost centers to determine any impact on the PACAP and if those journal entries were appropriate. We noted three improper journal entries that the Agency had not corrected as of the end of the fiscal year: • A journal entry for $526,487 was performed in November 2022 to temporarily move postage costs of multiple programs from State funds to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) grant until new coding could be created in the State’s accounting system to track expenses from one fiscal year to another. The intent was to reverse the entry as soon as the new coding was completed; however, the reversing entry was never performed. Since the Agency performs a quarterly adjustment for the CSE grant to charge indirect costs identified by the Agency’s PACAP to the grant, the CSE grant was overcharged a total of $263,628. No correcting entry had been made as of September 30, 2023. These are considered questioned costs. • A journal entry for $207,369 was performed in December 2022 to move expenses to allow payroll to post. The intent was to reverse the entry before the end of the fiscal year; however, that was not done. The expenses were moved from Medicaid administration and were charged to the Central Services and Supplies Cost Center, which is then allocated to numerous other Cost Centers that are further allocated or charged directly to Federal programs such as TANF and Child Care. Due to the intricacies of PACAP allocations, exact questioned costs are unknown. No correcting entry was made as of September 30, 2023. • A journal entry for $5,317,640 was done in February 2023 to move Premium Pay to the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant as additional pay for certain job roles allowed under that grant. However, the entry performed included some lines that were miscoded, most significantly a line for $764,187 that was supposed to move money within the same Cost Center (CC 25C21910 – Field Office Administration); however, it pulled costs out of Cost Center 25C21780 - Protection and Safety Policy Chief instead. Additionally, we confirmed with the Agency that the costs charged to CC 25C21910 under the CSLFRF grant were also allocated to other Federal programs through the PACAP, essentially charging Federal programs twice. Due to the intricacies of the PACAP allocations, total questioned costs are unknown; however, we were able to determine that this error caused Medicaid to be overcharged $149,478, LIHEAP to be overcharged $33,447, SNAP to be overcharged $44,984, Child Care to be overcharged $10,412, and TANF to be overcharged $7,357. Cause: Inadequate procedures to ensure that adjustments to the PACAP are proper and that journal entries are appropriate for each program. Effect: Unallowable expenditures were charged to Federal funds and there is an increased risk for errors, fraud, and non-compliance with Federal regulations. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure adjusting entries are complete and accurate. We further recommend the Agency strengthen procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Management Response: The Agency agrees.
Program: AL 20.509 – Formula Grants for Rural Areas – Allowability & Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: NE-2019-013-00, Performance End FFY 2023; NE-2022-019-00, Performance End FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1201.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at Title 2 CFR part 200. 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) requires costs to be reasonable, necessary, and adequately documented. A good internal control plan requires procedures to be in place to ensure compliance with Federal and State requirements. 2 CFR § 200.332(d) (January 1, 2023) requires the pass-through entity to do the following: Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. 2 CFR § 200.430(i)(1) (January 1, 2023) states the following, in relevant part: Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; * * * * (vii) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. (viii) Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined before the services are performed) alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards . . . . 2 CFR § 200.431(b) (January 1, 2023) states the following, in relevant part: Leave. The cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable if all of the following criteria are met: * * * * (2) The costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards . . . . 2 CFR § 200.467 (January 1, 2023) states the following: Costs of selling and marketing any products or services of the non-Federal entity (unless allowed under § 200.421) are unallowable, except as direct costs, with prior approval by the Federal awarding agency when necessary for the performance of the Federal award. Per 2 CFR § 200.405(a) (January 1, 2023), “A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.” Condition: The Agency lacked adequate documentation to support that payments were for allowable activities and in accordance with allowable cost principles. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. Repeat Finding: 2022-057 Questioned Costs: $82,967 known (NE-2019-013-00 $82,121; NE-2022-019-00 $846) Statistical Sample: No Context: During the fiscal year, the Agency paid 58 subrecipients a total of $10,974,293. We selected 24 payments to subrecipients for testing. The Agency performed financial reviews for subrecipients; however, the reviews tested did not always include all necessary supporting documentation. When additional documentation was needed, we gave the Agency the opportunity to obtain additional support from the subrecipient; however, adequate support was not always obtained or able to be provided. Our random sample included an operating assistance reimbursement to North Fork Area Transit (NFAT). As identified in both the prior Single audit and a separate letter sent to the Agency, dated August 7, 2023, reimbursements for questionable expenditures were made to NFAT during the period April 1, 2022, to November 30, 2022. The former NFAT director was alleged to have committed fraud during this period. Our current testing included the reimbursement for NFAT’s August 2022 expenditures. The payment tested reimbursed NFAT $201,438 in Federal dollars. Of that amount, $78,348 was questioned, as follows: • NFAT was reimbursed $21,665 for nonoperating personnel when the timesheets supporting the time worked were all copies of the same timesheet. • NFAT was reimbursed $29,072 for operating personnel hours worked that did not appear reasonable. We noted nine employees whose hours for the four-week period were between 234.6 to 321.12 hours. This averages from 58.65 to 80.28 hours per week for each employee. Such large weekly averages give rise to concerns about not only the reasonableness and necessity of these payments but also possible compliance issues with labor standards – not to mention safety issues for riders. This was also identified in the letter dated August 7, 2023, in which employees were identified as working excessive overtime. An additional $376 was questioned, as the number of work hours for which one employee received compensation did not agree to those listed on his timesheet. • NFAT was reimbursed $12,874 for vendor payments that never appear to have cleared the bank. Invoices and checks were provided to support the maintenance expenses reimbursed; however, the checks provided never cleared the bank. This was also identified in the letter dated August 7, 2023, which noted that the Director appeared to have written the checks but not paid the vendors. • NFAT was reimbursed $14,361 for a duplicate payment. An invoice and check were provided to support the reimbursement of an insurance expense; however, this same expense was also submitted and reimbursed by the Agency in NFAT’s September 2022 request for reimbursement. We also noted issues with 12 of the 24 subrecipient payments tested, amounting to $4,619 in questioned costs, due to the following: • For eight subrecipients tested, documentation was inadequate to support that personnel charges were allowable and in accordance with Federal cost principles, resulting in questioned costs of $2,705. Specifically, we noted the following: o Payments for employee leave was not equitably allocated based on time worked. o One subrecipient had wages reimbursed based on budgeted amounts. o One subrecipient was reimbursed for health insurance for two employees who had elected to receive wages in lieu of such insurance. o One subrecipient requested reimbursement for wages that did not agree with the amount paid to employees. • For six subrecipients tested, questioned costs of $1,914 were identified due to inadequate support for capital and nonoperating costs. Questioned costs included the following: o One subrecipient was reimbursed for carpet adhesive that was later returned to the store. The subrecipient reimbursed the Director for the purchase of the carpet adhesive on her personal credit card, but the Agency was unable to identify a subsequent reimbursement request that reduced the amount sought for the returned items. Additionally, the subrecipient paid the Director for travel to another state to purchase the carpet adhesive, which not only could have been obtained from a more nearby merchant but also was ultimately returned. o Unreasonable travel reimbursements were noted. Among those was reimbursement for costs incurred by the subrecipient’s Director to travel to a meeting of an unaffiliated organization’s Board of Directors upon which she served as a member. That travel to attend a separate Board meeting was unrelated to the transit program. o A subrecipient was reimbursed for fees related to obtaining a trademark, which appears to have been a marketing expense that was not approved by the Federal awarding agency. o One subrecipient was reimbursed for an administrative fee that was not supported. The payment tested included a 7% administrative fee that was not specified in the agreement. o One subrecipient was reimbursed for unreasonable items, such as Christmas décor and Christmas candy. o One subrecipient was reimbursed for bookkeeping expenses; however, the subrecipient did not provide documentation to support that the amount allocated for that purpose was reasonable. Based on the sample tested, we estimate the potential dollars at risk for the fiscal year to be $501,670, as detailed below: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: Procedures were inadequate to ensure that costs were in accordance with Federal requirements. Effect: Increased risk for errors or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen subrecipient monitoring procedures. We further recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure expenditures are allowable and in accordance with Federal regulations. Management Response: NDOT concurs with the findings and has revised reimbursement guidelines for subrecipients, clarifying allowed expenses and required documentation. Over the next 6-12 months, NDOT will conduct training sessions with subrecipients and collaborate with internal auditors on compliance matters. The establishment of the “Federal Oversight” unit within the Transit Section aims to improve monitoring, consistency, and compliance with federal requirements for all subrecipients.
Program: AL 21.023 – COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance – Allowability & Eligibility & Period of Performance Grant Number & Year: N/A Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at 2 CFR part 200. Per 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) states, in part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.405(d) (January 1, 2023) states the following, in relevant part: If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then, notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. Per 2 CFR § 1108.285 (January 1, 2023): Period of performance means the time during which a recipient or subrecipient may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under an award or subaward, respectively. Question 7 in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guidance document (Revised July 27, 2022), issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, for the Emergency Rental Assistance program, states the following: For both ERA1 and ERA2, other expenses related to housing include relocation expenses (including prospective relocation expenses), such as rental security deposits, and rental fees, which may include application or screening fees. It can also include reasonable accrued late fees (if not included in rental or utility arrears), and Internet service provided to the rental unit. . . . All payments for housing-related expenses must be supported by documentary evidence such as a bill, invoice, or evidence of payment to the provider of the service. Question 4 of the same FAQ guidance document also states the following: The statute establishing ERA1 provides that grantees may determine income eligibility based on either (i) the household’s total income for calendar year 2020, or (ii) sufficient confirmation of the household’s monthly income at the time of application, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary). . . . In order to provide assistance rapidly, during the public health emergency related to COVID-19 the grantee may rely on a self-attestation of household income without further verification if the applicant confirms in their application or other document that they are unable to provide documentation of their income. If a written attestation without further verification is relied on to document the majority of the applicant’s income, the grantee must reassess the household’s income every three months, by obtaining appropriate documentation or a new self-attestation. The Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1): Closeout Resource (September 16, 2022), also promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, contains the following: The end date of the award period of performance is the last day for a grantee to obligate funds for ERA1 activities (September 30, 2022 for award funds received pursuant to the grantee’s initial allocation and December 29, 2022 for reallocated funds). Funds statutorily available for administrative costs are not considered to be “automatically” obligated; therefore, grantees must obligate award funds by the end of the award period of performance to cover their administrative costs for closeout activities. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that adequate supporting documentation is obtained and utilized during the application review process. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure compliance with Federal regulations. Condition: Procedures were inadequate to ensure that payments were allowable, and individuals were eligible for assistance. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. For one contract payment tested, the costs had neither been obligated nor occurred prior to the end of the period of performance for the ERA1 program. Additionally, the costs were associated with multiple programs but charged only to the ERA1 program. Repeat Finding: 2022-052 Questioned Costs: $172,809 known Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted that 7 of 25 assistance payments tested had errors or inadequate support, as follows: • One payment lacked documentation to support the tenant’s 2020 income or monthly income at the time of the application. • Five payments were for rent assistance for October and/or November 2022, which is after the period of performance. • One payment was for late fees; however, the lease agreement provided did not contain a late fee clause. Federal payment errors for the sample tested were $7,809. The total sample tested was $35,575, and assistance payments for the fiscal year totaled $4,678,044. Based on the sample tested, the dollar error rate for the sample was 21.95% ($7,809/$35,575), which estimates the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2023 to be $1,026,831 (dollar rate multiplied by the population). We tested three contract payments made after January 1, 2023. One payment for $165,000 was to obtain licenses to access ServiceNow for the period October 7, 2023, to January 31, 2026. This item was added to the contract on January 13, 2023. Additionally, it was noted that this access was purchased to access information related to other programs, along with ERA1. Therefore, these costs were not incurred or obligated prior to the end of the period of performance for ERA1, and the costs were not allocated to all benefitting programs as required. Cause: Inadequate review. Effect: Increased risk of loss or misuse of funds and non-compliance with Federal guidelines. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure expenditures charged are within the allowed time period, adequately documented, and comply with Federal requirements. Management Response: Coordination with the contractor is ongoing. Audit findings are shared and revised as training and management attention was discussed. There are many checks and balance steps that continue to be discussed and revised on a weekly basis during call in monitoring and reporting session.
Program: AL 21.026 – COVID-19 Homeowner Assistance Fund – Allowability Grant Number & Year: N/A Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at 2 CFR part 200. Per 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023) states, in part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . . 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: * * * * (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: The Agency lacked adequate procedures for ensuring that payments were allowable. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $215 known Statistical Sample: No Context: We tested 25 assistance payments. One payment tested was for the incorrect amount. Per supporting documentation reviewed, the applicant owed $257 in past due utilities; however, a payment of $472 was issued to pay this outstanding balance, resulting in an overpayment of $215. The total sample tested was $50,612, and total assistance payments for the fiscal year were $27,300,898. Based on the sample tested, the case error rate was 4% (1/25). The dollar error rate for the sample was 0.42% ($215/50,612), which estimates the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2023 to be $114,664 (dollar rate multiplied by the population). Cause: Staff errors and inadequate review. Effect: Increased risk for errors or fraud. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency improve procedures for ensuring that payments are proper. Management Response: The agency recognizes the findings and agree with staff errors.
Program: AL 21.027 – COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds – Allowability & Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: SLFRP1965, March 3, 2021, through December 31, 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: 31 CFR § 35.6(b) (July 1, 2022) states, in relevant part, the following: A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts if the use meets the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or is enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; provided that, in case of a use of funds for a capital expenditure under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section, the use of funds must also meet the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Treasury may also articulate additional eligible programs, services, or capital expenditures from time to time that satisfy the eligibility criteria of this paragraph (b), which shall be eligible under this paragraph (b). (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure is eligible under this paragraph (b)(1) if a recipient identifies a harm or impact to a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts and the program, service, or capital expenditure responds to such harm. (ii) A program, service, or capital expenditure responds to a harm or impact experienced by an identified beneficiary or class of beneficiaries if it is reasonably designed to benefit the beneficiary or class of beneficiaries that experienced the harm or impact and is related and reasonably proportional to the extent and type of harm or impact experienced. * * * * (3) A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts on a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries for one or more of the following purposes unless such use is grossly disproportionate to the harm caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts: * * * * (ii) Responding to the negative economic impacts of the public health emergency for purposes including: * * * * (C) Assistance to nonprofit organizations including programs, services, or capital expenditures, including loans or grants to mitigate financial hardship such as declines in revenues or increased costs, or technical assistance[.] 31 CFR § 35.6(c) (July 1, 2022) states the following: A recipient may use funds to provide premium pay to eligible workers of the recipient who perform essential work or to provide grants to eligible employers that have eligible workers who perform essential work, provided that any premium pay or grants provided under this paragraph (c) must respond to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency. A recipient uses premium pay or grants provided under this paragraph (c) to respond to eligible workers performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency if: (1) The eligible worker's total wages and remuneration, including the premium pay, is less than or equal to 150 percent of the greater of such eligible worker's residing State's or county's average annual wage for all occupations as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics; (2) The eligible worker is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions (29 U.S.C. 207); or (3) The recipient has submitted to the Secretary a written justification that explains how providing premium pay to the eligible worker is responsive to the eligible worker performing essential work during the COVID–19 public health emergency (such as a description of the eligible workers' duties, health, or financial risks faced due to COVID–19, and why the recipient determined that the premium pay was responsive despite the worker's higher income). 31 CFR § 35.3 (July 1, 2022) defines “premium pay,” in relevant part, as follows: Premium pay means an amount of up to $13 per hour that is paid to an eligible worker, in addition to wages or remuneration the eligible worker otherwise receives, for all work performed by the eligible worker during the COVID–19 public health emergency. Such amount may not exceed $25,000 in total over the period of performance with respect to any single eligible worker. Additionally, the “Final Rule” was released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on January 6, 2022. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 1. General Provisions: Structure and Standards, a. Standards for Identifying a Public Health or Negative Economic Impact, Standards: Designating a Negative Economic Impact, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4344) First, there must be a negative economic impact, or an economic harm, experienced by an individual or a class. The recipient should assess whether, and the extent to which, there has been an economic harm, such as loss of earnings or revenue, that resulted from the COVID-19 public health emergency. A recipient should first consider whether an economic harm exists and then whether this harm was caused or made worse by the COVID-19 public health emergency. * * * * Second, the response must be designed to address the identified economic harm or impact resulting from or exacerbated by the public health emergency. In selecting responses, the recipient must assess whether, and the extent to which, the use would respond to or address this harm or impact. * * * * Responses must be reasonably designed to benefit the individual or class that experienced the negative economic impact or harm. Uses of funds should be assessed based on their responsiveness to their intended beneficiary and the ability of the response to address the impact or harm experienced by that beneficiary. Responses must also be related and reasonably proportional to the extent and type of harm experienced. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 3. Negative Economic Impacts, c. Assistance to Nonprofits, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4380) The interim final rule provided for, and the final rule maintains, the ability for recipients to provide direct assistance to nonprofits that experienced public health or negative economic impacts of the pandemic. Specifically, recipients may provide direct assistance to nonprofits if the nonprofit has experienced a public health or negative economic impact as a result of the pandemic. For example, if a nonprofit organization experienced impacts like decreased revenues or increased costs (e.g., through reduced contributions or uncompensated increases in service need), and a recipient provides funds to address that impact, then it is providing direct assistance to the nonprofit as a beneficiary under Subsection (c)(1) of Sections 602 and 603. Direct assistance may take the form of loans, grants, in-kind assistance, technical assistance, or other services that respond to the negative economic impacts of the COVID–19 public health emergency. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 4. General Provisions: Other, a. Public Sector Capacity and Workforce, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4386) The final rule allows for an expanded set of eligible uses to restore and support public sector employment. Eligible uses include hiring up to a pre-pandemic baseline that is adjusted for historic underinvestment in the public sector, providing additional funds for employees who experienced pay cuts or were furloughed, avoiding layoffs, providing worker retention incentives, and paying for ancillary administrative costs related to hiring. * * * * The final rule provides two options to restore pre-pandemic employment, depending on recipient’s needs. Under the first and simpler option, recipients may use SLFRF funds to rehire staff for pre-pandemic positions that were unfilled or were eliminated due the pandemic without undergoing further analysis. Under the second option, the final rule provides recipients an option to hire above the pre-pandemic baseline, by adjusting the pre-pandemic baseline for historical growth in public sector employment over time, as well as flexibility on roles for hire. * * * * To pursue the second option, recipients should undergo the analysis provided below. In short, this option allows recipients to pay for payroll and covered benefits associated with the recipient increasing its number of budgeted full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) up to 7.5 percent above its pre-pandemic employment baseline, which adjusts for the continued underinvestment in state and local governments since the Great Recession. * * * * Funds may be used to maintain current compensation levels, with adjustments for inflation, in order to prevent layoffs that would otherwise be necessary. Recipients must be able to substantiate that layoffs were likely in the absence of SLFRF funds and would be substantially due to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts (e.g., fiscal pressures on state and local budgets) and should document their assessment. * * * * Funds may be used to provide worker retention incentives, which are designed to persuade employees to remain with the employer as compared to other employment options. Recipients must be able to substantiate that the employees were likely to leave employment in the absence of the retention incentive and should document their assessment. * * * * All worker retention incentives must be narrowly tailored to need and should not exceed incentives traditionally offered by the recipient or compensation that alternative employers may offer to compete for the employees. Further, because retention incentives are intended to provide additional incentive to remain with the employer, they must be entirely additive to an employee’s regular rate of wages and other remuneration and may not be used to reduce or substitute for an employee’s normal earnings. Treasury will presume that retention incentives that are less than 25 percent of the rate of base pay for an individual employee or 10 percent for a group or category of employees are reasonably proportional to the need to retain employees, as long as the other requirements are met. The Final Rule, Section II. Eligible Uses, A. Public Health and Negative Economic Impacts, 4. General Provisions: Other, b. Capital Expenditures, Overview of General Standards, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4391) Large capital expenditures intended for general economic development or to aid the travel, tourism, and hospitality industries—such as convention centers and stadiums—are, on balance, generally not reasonably proportional to addressing the negative economic impacts of the pandemic, as the efficacy of a large capital expenditure intended for general economic development in remedying pandemic harms may be very limited compared to its cost. The Final Rule, Footnote 230, states the following, in relevant part: (Page 4379) Ultimately, recipients must comply with the eligible use requirements and any other applicable laws or requirements and are responsible for the actions of their subrecipients or beneficiaries. Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2023), “[T]he Department of the Treasury adopts the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, set forth at 2 CFR part 200.” 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. 2 CFR § 200.430(i)(1) (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: * * * * (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non- Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. 2 CFR § 200.303 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. Good internal control and sound business practices requires procedures for ensuring that: 1) grants issued to beneficiaries are reasonable and proportional to the harm identified; 2) premium pay is correctly calculated; and 3) all expenditures of funds are for allowable purposes. Condition: The State lacked procedures for ensuring that grants issued to beneficiaries for worker retention and incentives were used for such purposes. The State lacked both procedures and the requisite knowledge to ensure that the premium charged to the grant was allowable. The State lacked procedures to ensure that grants to nonprofits were proportional to the negative economic harm incurred. The State lacked subrecipient monitoring procedures. The State possibly made fraudulent payments under the State’s nursing scholarship program. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: $23,452,594 Known Statistical Sample: No Context: We noted the following: Payments to Developmental Disability Providers, Assisted-Living Facilities, and Nursing Facilities for Employee Retention and Recruitment Nebraska Legislative Bill (LB) 1014 (2022), section 23, appropriated $20,000,000 from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) grant to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for state fiscal year 2023 to be used for Developmental Disability (DD) provider rate increases for the purpose of enhancing employee retention and recruitment at the DD providers. DHHS implemented a 9% rate increase for select DD services in state fiscal year 2023. During the fiscal year, DD claims were paid out using State and Federal funds in accordance with the applicable Federal matching percentage (FMAP). In June 2023, DHHS made a journal entry to transfer $19,995,679 in expenditures from the State and Federal General Funds to the CSLFRF grant in accordance with the FMAP rates. LB 1014, section 27, appropriated $5,462,800 from the CSLFRF grant to DHHS for State fiscal year 2023 to be paid out to assisted-living facilities for the following: 1) “Incentives for staff members employed by the licensed assisted-living facility in order to enhance employee recruitment and retention”; and 2) “Assistance with costs for supplies and equipment purchased by the licensed assisted-living facility.” DHHS paid out $5,068,000 to assisted-living facilities during state fiscal year 2023. LB 1014, section 28, appropriated $20,000,000 from the CSLFRF grant to DHHS for state fiscal year 2023 to be paid out to Medicaid-certified nursing facilities. The funds were to be used to provide supplemental incentive payments for direct care staff members employed at the nursing facilities. DHHS paid out $20,000,000 to nursing facilities during state fiscal year 2023. During a testing of a random sample of 25 CSLFRF payments, we tested seven payments to nursing facilities, totaling $1,304,915. We asked for documentation of how DHHS ensured that the payments were used for allowable employee retention and recruitment programs, and for any documented assessments that were required by the Final Rule for worker incentive programs. According to DHHS, the funds were paid out in accordance with the requirements of LB 1014; however, DHHS acknowledged lacking procedures to ensure that the beneficiaries were using the funds for eligible recruitment and retention purposes. Additionally, DHHS failed to provide the required documented assessments per the Final Rule. Given the lack of procedures to support that funds were being used for allowable purposes, all seven payments of the $1,304,915 tested are considered questioned costs. Additionally, the entire $20,000,000 paid out during the fiscal year are considered potential dollars at risk. Additionally, we tested one $110,400 payment to an assisted-living facility under LB 1014, Section 27. Similar to the nursing facility payments tested, DHHS lacked procedures for ensuring that the assisted-living facilities were using the funds for eligible recruitment and retention purposes. Therefore, the $110,400 payment tested is considered a questioned cost. Lastly, we tested the journal entries transferring $19,995,679 in expenditures to the CSLFRF grant for DD provider rate increases. Again, DHHS lacked procedures for ensuring that the DD providers were using the funds for eligible recruitment and retention purposes. Therefore, the journal entries tested for $19,995,679 are considered questioned costs. We also noted that, due to an oversight error, one nursing facility that had certified Medicaid beds did not receive its proportional allocation of $43,138. Instead, that amount was split among the other nursing facilities that received payments. Premium Pay LB 1014, section 12, appropriated $3,546,602 to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) from the CSLFRF grant to be used for premium pay. In September 2022, the DVA posted journal entries to move payroll costs of $3,546,602 to the CSLFRF grant. However, we noted that the DVA did not review the premium pay eligibility requirements, which resulted in the following errors: • The DVA moved $357,039 of payroll costs associated with individuals who had earnings of more than 150% of the applicable average wage for all occupations and were not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions, which is not allowable. • $145,205 of the payroll costs moved were for premium pay that exceeded $25,000 per person, which is not allowable. • The DVA moved payroll costs that were not for premium pay and were not in addition to wages the workers were already receiving. From a detail test of 25 employees, $371,683 out of $585,901 of payroll costs were not related to premium pay. After the errors noted above were communicated to the DVA, the DVA recalculated the amount to charge the CSLFRF grant for premium pay, and the DVA calculated that only $1,518,092 should have been charged to the CSLFRF grant. We verified that, for the 25 employees previously tested, the DVA’s revised calculation agreed to our calculation. We verified also that the DVA’s revised calculation excluded individuals whose wages exceeded 150% of the applicable average wage for all occupations, and premium pay was capped at $25,000 for each employee. Therefore, the $2,028,510 difference between the $3,546,602 charged to the grant and the revised calculation of $1,518,092 is considered a questioned cost. Assistance to Nonprofits LB 1014, section 46, appropriated $100,000,000 to the Department of Economic Development (DED) from the CSLFRF grant to be used to provide grants to qualified nonprofit organizations to assist with capital projects that have been delayed due to COVID-19. In order to receive a grant, a nonprofit had to submit a grant application attesting to have experienced negative economic harm due to the public health emergency. During our testing, we noted that DED did not require nonprofits to submit documentation to substantiate having experienced a negative economic impact due to the pandemic that was equivalent or reasonably proportional to the grant award. We also noted that, for two of the nonprofit payments selected for testing, the two nonprofits received grant awards of $12,664,600 each to be used solely for the purpose of construction and development of sports complexes for competitive sports and economic growth. Per the CSLFRF Final Rule, large capital projects intended for general economic growth are not generally proportional responses to negative harm. Therefore, if the nonprofits had not suffered an economic harm due to COVID-19, these projects would otherwise not be an eligible use of CSLFRF funds. We gave DED the opportunity to obtain documentation from the nonprofits to support that they experienced a negative economic impact proportional to the amount awarded. In all instances, DED was able to obtain documentation substantiating the negative economic harm in excess of the grant amounts awarded. University of Nebraska The University of Nebraska (University) was awarded $86,650,000 in a subaward to be used for a number of projects, including increasing the capacity of behavioral health care and rural health care. To monitor this subaward, the Military Department (Military) received and reviewed reports from the University and would have monthly meetings to discuss updates and whether deadlines were being met. Military stated that, beyond these monthly meetings, there were no planned procedures for reviewing any expenditures to ensure they were for allowable purposes and met the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, which is set out under 2 CFR Part 200 to establish uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards to non-Federal entities. We selected one CSLFRF expenditure recorded by the University. The payment was for $116,670 and made to a subrecipient of the University. The subrecipient was a behavioral health provider and was used to increase telehealth capacity. During review of supporting documentation, we noted that adequate documentation was not on file to support the salary and fringe benefits charged to the CSLFRF grant for the two subrecipient employees tested. The employees’ salary and fringe benefits had been allocated to the CSLFRF grant based on historical data and “prior experience with similar programs.” As noted in 2 CFR § 200.430(h)(8)(viii), however, “Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined before the services are performed) alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards . . . .” Consequently, we consider the $8,090 in salary and benefits charged for the two employees to be questioned costs. The total salary and fringe benefits reimbursed on the payment tested amounted to $29,277. Nursing Scholarships During testing procedures, DHHS reported to us $5,000 in payments that were made due to fraudulent nursing scholarship applications submitted to, and accepted by, DHHS. Per DHHS’s subsequent review, the applicant fraudulently claimed on her application that she was enrolled in a nursing program during the spring and summer 2023 terms. DHHS has reported this to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These $5,000 payments are considered questioned costs. Cause: The State had inadequate procedures to ensure that the grant was used for allowable purposes, and staff had inadequate knowledge of the requirements of the CSLFRF. Effect: Without adequate supporting documentation and review procedures, there is an increased risk that Federal awards could be used for unallowable costs. Recommendation: We recommend the State strengthen procedures for ensuring that all Federal funds are used for intended and allowable purposes. We further recommend that the State take steps to recoup any payments for which either the beneficiary cannot support the proper use of the grant funds received or to the economic harm experienced. Management Response: Payments to Developmental Disability Providers, Assisted-Living Facilities, and Nursing Facilities for Employee Retention and Recruitment: Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) disagrees with questioned costs of $21,410,994 ($1,304,915 Nursing Facilities, $110,400 Assisted Living Facilities, $19,995,679 Developmental Disabilities Providers). Payments made to Developmental Disability Providers, Assisted-Living Facilities, and Nursing Facilities followed federal regulations and were accurately distributed as directed by the legislature and signed legislation, LB1014. Payments to each facility were based on approved amounts in the legislative bill. In addition, DHHS properly passed requirements and regulatory information on to the providers. DHHS issued the following guidance document (as required by the legislation as well) https://dhhs.ne.gov/Grants%20and%20Contract%20Opportunity%20Docs/LB1014%20Guidance%20Document_DHHS%20DL%206-13-22.pdf#search=LB1014. If DHHS becomes aware of known unallowable activities, we will recoup applicable funds. Premium Pay: As noted in the Auditors Comments, NDVA made the necessary corrections to their workbooks to comply with these guidelines. However, the amounts reflected in the Auditors comments were only for eligible expenses through September of 2022 and did not take into consideration the entire Fiscal Year 2023. NDVA’s eligible expenses as of June 30, 2023, were $3,695,625, which exceeded the $3,546,602 appropriated in LB 1014 by approximately $148,460. Assistance to Nonprofits: DED acknowledges that with respect to its American Rescue Plan Act Shovel-Ready program in some cases it did not collect sufficient documentation to show the nonprofit organization suffered an economic harm related to and reasonably proportionate to DED’s award. University of Nebraska: NEMA continues to monitor the University of Nebraska (University) subaward through the review of reports and monthly progress meetings. APA Response: Per the CSLFRF final rule, the recipient, which is the State, must comply with the eligible use requirements and is ultimately responsible for the actions of its beneficiaries. No documentation was provided to support that the funds granted to Developmental Disability Providers, Assisted-Living Facilities, and Nursing Facilities were spent on allowable retention and recruitment efforts or that any applicable pre-analysis required by the CSLFRF final rule was completed. The journal entry prepared by NDVA was done in September 2022. It covers the premium pay given in November 2021 to June 2022. We were not provided a spreadsheet with updated calculations, nor did the Agency make any adjustments in the accounting system to show this as an offset of fiscal year 2023 expenses.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, 21611-026-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, it could not be determined if the non-public proportionate share was met for the School Corporation. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Harrison County Exceptional Learners Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-026-PN01 and 21619-026-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The non-public proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, and 21611-026-PN01 grant awards. The School Corporation’s total earmarking requirement for the grants with noncompliance was $5,923. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, 21611-026-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, it could not be determined if the non-public proportionate share was met for the School Corporation. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Harrison County Exceptional Learners Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-026-PN01 and 21619-026-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The non-public proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, and 21611-026-PN01 grant awards. The School Corporation’s total earmarking requirement for the grants with noncompliance was $5,923. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, 21611-026-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, it could not be determined if the non-public proportionate share was met for the School Corporation. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Harrison County Exceptional Learners Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-026-PN01 and 21619-026-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The non-public proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, and 21611-026-PN01 grant awards. The School Corporation’s total earmarking requirement for the grants with noncompliance was $5,923. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, 21611-026-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, it could not be determined if the non-public proportionate share was met for the School Corporation. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Harrison County Exceptional Learners Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-026-PN01 and 21619-026-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The non-public proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, and 21611-026-PN01 grant awards. The School Corporation’s total earmarking requirement for the grants with noncompliance was $5,923. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, 21611-026-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation’s management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, it could not be determined if the non-public proportionate share was met for the School Corporation. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Harrison County Exceptional Learners Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 21611-026-PN01 and 21619-026-PN01 grant awards could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The non-public proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. These were the amounts reported to IDOE. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 19611-026-PN01, 20611-026-PN01, and 21611-026-PN01 grant awards. The School Corporation’s total earmarking requirement for the grants with noncompliance was $5,923. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, 22619-046-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirements. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Porter County Education Interlocal (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was 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 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 non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 22619-046-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls was isolated to the 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, and 22619-046-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to monitor the Cooperative and 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, 22619-046-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirements. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Porter County Education Interlocal (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was 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 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 non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 22619-046-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls was isolated to the 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, and 22619-046-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to monitor the Cooperative and 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: 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): 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, 22619-046-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and earmarking compliance requirement. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirements. FINDING 2023-003 (Continued) Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Porter County Education Interlocal (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was 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 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 non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. The Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 22619-046-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member schools. Total grant expenditures were posted as expended. The nonpublic proportionate share expenditures were determined by applying a percentage to the non-public school budgeted expenditures. As such, we were unable to identify if the minimum amount per the grant award was expended and properly reported to IDOE as required. The lack of internal controls was isolated to the 21611-046-PN01, 21619-046-PN01, and 22619-046-PN01 grant awards. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to monitor the Cooperative and 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 and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S425D210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the novel coronavirus. A sample of 26 claims charged to the ESF program for which reimbursement was received during the audit period was selected for testing to verify the expenditures were in conformance with the applicable cost principles. Of the 26 claims tested, 5 were transfers of payroll expenses, totaling $179,625, into the Esser II fund (ESF fund) for Coronavirus related payroll expenses. Errors as described below were identified when testing the transfers. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 LAKELAND SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation transferred employee's pay related to sick time due to COVID-19 from the paying funds to the ESF fund. Several employees' pay was not able to be recalculated. The School Corporation provided documentation supporting the employees' pay; however, the recalculation of that pay did not equal the amount transferred into the ESF Fund. The total calculated variances were $8,300. This amount was considered questioned costs. In addition, several employees' pay did not have appropriate supporting documentation to substantiate payment of their payroll with ESF funds. This included the payment of substitute teachers without documentation of the person paid and the payment of sick days when the school was closed. Total payroll that was not substantiated was $24,769. This amount was considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls were a systemic issue throughout the audit period. The noncompliance was isolated to the items noted above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LAKELAND SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, documentation could not be provided to support amounts charged to the grant. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $33,069 were identified as detailed in Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure amounts charged to the grant are properly recorded and approved to support the amounts paid from the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24
FINDING 2023-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S425D210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the novel coronavirus. A sample of 26 claims charged to the ESF program for which reimbursement was received during the audit period was selected for testing to verify the expenditures were in conformance with the applicable cost principles. Of the 26 claims tested, 5 were transfers of payroll expenses, totaling $179,625, into the Esser II fund (ESF fund) for Coronavirus related payroll expenses. Errors as described below were identified when testing the transfers. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 LAKELAND SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The School Corporation transferred employee's pay related to sick time due to COVID-19 from the paying funds to the ESF fund. Several employees' pay was not able to be recalculated. The School Corporation provided documentation supporting the employees' pay; however, the recalculation of that pay did not equal the amount transferred into the ESF Fund. The total calculated variances were $8,300. This amount was considered questioned costs. In addition, several employees' pay did not have appropriate supporting documentation to substantiate payment of their payroll with ESF funds. This included the payment of substitute teachers without documentation of the person paid and the payment of sick days when the school was closed. Total payroll that was not substantiated was $24,769. This amount was considered questioned costs. The ineffective internal controls were a systemic issue throughout the audit period. The noncompliance was isolated to the items noted above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LAKELAND SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, documentation could not be provided to support amounts charged to the grant. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $33,069 were identified as detailed in Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure amounts charged to the grant are properly recorded and approved to support the amounts paid from the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund program. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24
FINDING 2023-008 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Earmarking Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers: 22611-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:… (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 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." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the earmarking requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the required level of expenditures for non-public school students with disabilities was met for each member school. The Cooperative did not have effective internal controls to ensure non-public school expenditures were appropriately identified and reported. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the earmarking requirements could not be verified as having been met. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Although the Cooperative has a separate object code to identify expenditures for the purpose of proportionate share, there is no identifier or separate way to track which member school the funding was expended for. As such, the Non-Public Proportionate Share expenditures for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award could not be verified for the individual member schools. Additionally, the Cooperative did not obtain a waiver from the Indiana Department of Education for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award, no waiver was obtained, and the amounts spent could not be traced to documentation that indicated which member school the expenditure was applied to. Also, the total amount expended for proportionate share was less than the total amount required when all member school proportionate share requirements were totaled. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 22611-022-PN01 grant award. The minimum earmarking requirement for the 22611-022-PN01 grant award was $1,620. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure non-public proportionate share funds are appropriately allocated to the member school based on expenses charged directly on behalf of the member school. Supporting documentation for these expenses should be retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 2021-2022, 2022-2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context A cash reimbursement is provided to the School Corporation based on meals served under the School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, and Summer Food Service Program for Children. The cash reimbursement is to be used for the benefit of the food service program. The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. There was no documented internal control in place over payroll claims to ensure that payroll charged to the grant was reviewed and approved by an individual knowledgeable about the cost principles. In addition, pay rates could not be tied directly to the salary ordinance for 4 of the 40 payroll payments tested. Timecards were provided which substantiated the hours worked; however, the hourly rate at which the employees were paid could not be tied to the salary ordinance or other internal records provided. The hourly rates paid to these four employees did not differ significantly from the rates documented in the salary ordinances. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 7 CFR 220.7(e) states in part: ". . . the School Food Authority shall, with respect to participating schools under its jurisdiction: . . . (1) (i) Maintain a nonprofit school food service; (ii) . . . use all revenues received by such food service only for the operation or improvement of that food service . . ." 7 CFR 225.15(a)(1) states: "Sponsors shall operate the food service in accordance with: the provisions of this part; any instructions and handbooks issued by FNS under this part; and any instructions and handbooks issued by the State agency which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 COMMUNITY SCHOOLS OF FRANKFORT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper design or implementation of the components of a system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, payroll disbursements identified above could not be tied to an approved salary. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation design and implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that would ensure that employees charged to the grant are paid the approved rate of pay. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.