Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Assistance Listing Number: 93.592 Major Program Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed Criteria: In accordance with 200.403(g) in Subpart E of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), all costs must be adequately documented. This includes all invoices or other supporting documentation associated with program expenses should be retained to ensure the expense was in accordance with the requirements of the federal program and reported appropriately. Condition: Accurate and reliable records are necessary to meet ongoing financial reporting and operations needs and requirements. During our testing of the Organization?s compliance with Assistance Listing 93.592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary, the Organization was unable to provide approximately 17% of the invoices or other supporting documentation selected for testing that are associated with certain program expenses incurred. Cause: The Organization is understaffed and has experienced significant turnover in the accounting and finance department which makes it difficult to maintain internal controls designed to reasonably assure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effect: The absence of expenditure supporting documentation inhibits the Organization from complying with federal program requirements and the potential of disallowed costs and/or repayment to the federal agency. Recommendation: The Organization should retain all supporting documentation for reported expenditures. View of Responsible Officials: A former Board member with finance and operations experience has been tasked with reviewing financial policies and procedures to ensure compliance in all areas. Policies and procedures will be updated with new processes. To date there have been two changes implemented. Finance staff must now attach electronic copies of invoices within the accounting system to corresponding transactions in order to process payment. In addition, a report of credit card charges missing required documentation is circulated to management monthly, with follow-up to the individual purchasers. Training for all members of the department will occur on an ongoing and regular basis to ensure best practices are being upheld. Policies and procedures and/or the Financial Procedures Handbook will also be updated to reflect the changes.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Assistance Listing Number: 93.592 Major Program Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed Criteria: In accordance with 200.403(g) in Subpart E of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), all costs must be adequately documented. This includes all invoices or other supporting documentation associated with program expenses should be retained to ensure the expense was in accordance with the requirements of the federal program and reported appropriately. Condition: Accurate and reliable records are necessary to meet ongoing financial reporting and operations needs and requirements. During our testing of the Organization?s compliance with Assistance Listing 93.592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary, the Organization was unable to provide approximately 17% of the invoices or other supporting documentation selected for testing that are associated with certain program expenses incurred. Cause: The Organization is understaffed and has experienced significant turnover in the accounting and finance department which makes it difficult to maintain internal controls designed to reasonably assure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effect: The absence of expenditure supporting documentation inhibits the Organization from complying with federal program requirements and the potential of disallowed costs and/or repayment to the federal agency. Recommendation: The Organization should retain all supporting documentation for reported expenditures. View of Responsible Officials: A former Board member with finance and operations experience has been tasked with reviewing financial policies and procedures to ensure compliance in all areas. Policies and procedures will be updated with new processes. To date there have been two changes implemented. Finance staff must now attach electronic copies of invoices within the accounting system to corresponding transactions in order to process payment. In addition, a report of credit card charges missing required documentation is circulated to management monthly, with follow-up to the individual purchasers. Training for all members of the department will occur on an ongoing and regular basis to ensure best practices are being upheld. Policies and procedures and/or the Financial Procedures Handbook will also be updated to reflect the changes.
Finding 2022-001: Internal Control over Compliance and Compliance with Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Information on the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number 19.510?Reception and Placement Program, United States Department of State, Bureau for Population, Refugees and Migration. Pass-Through Entity: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. Award Number: 323-21-CNWA-02. Compliance Requirements: Allowable Costs and Cost Principles. Type of Finding: Noncompliance. Criteria: CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, Section (a) states the Organization must establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Organization is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its allowable cost/cost principle process. CFR 200.403(b) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Program requirements state that allowable costs include having only expenditures during the 90-day reception and placement period of each client. Condition: During our testing of allowable costs for expenditures incurred throughout the year, we noted exception in proper recording of dates for expenditures incurred in federal programs. Cause: Policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in certain instances to ensure that proper input of information was entered into the general ledger system to ensure costs allocated to the program were allowable and that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Effect or Potential Effect: An ineffective control system related to review of transactions being entered into the system to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. As a result, the entity recorded an expenditure under the program that did not qualify as it was spent outside the 90-day reception and replacement period of the client for the year ended September 30, 2022, by the amount of questioned costs below. Questioned Costs: $1,190. Context: Of the $75,074 reported as a fiscal year expenditure, $1,190 represented expenditures that were not allowable due to being outside the 90-day reception and replacement period. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization ensure its policies and procedures ensure that the dates are being properly recorded to the general ledger to ensure allowable costs are being reimbursed and that these policies and procedures are followed on a consistent basis.
2022-002 Noncompliance with Period of Performance and Internal Controls Over Compliance ? 93.569 Criteria ? 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, ?200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h). An entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award?s period of performance. Condition and Context ? Single audit procedures noted one expenditure that included FY2022 and FY2023 amounts. The expenditure included amounts related to October 2022, which is after the federal award period of performance, but was expensed in full to the award as of September 30, 2022. Cause ? Oversight on reviewing the cutoff of direct expenditures prior to the end of the award?s period of performance. Effect ? An expenditure below compliance materiality that was incurred after the award?s period of performance was expensed. Management posted an adjustment to remove the amounts applicable to FY2023. Questioned Costs ? None Recommendations ? Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over direct federal award expenditures and ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. In addition, management should seek appropriate training for financial department staff to ensure proper cutoff of program expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? The Association has emphasized the period of performance for all programs. Management has agreed to strengthen controls and provide training for program expenditure cutoff.
2022-002 Noncompliance with Period of Performance and Internal Controls Over Compliance ? 93.569 Criteria ? 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, ?200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h). An entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award?s period of performance. Condition and Context ? Single audit procedures noted one expenditure that included FY2022 and FY2023 amounts. The expenditure included amounts related to October 2022, which is after the federal award period of performance, but was expensed in full to the award as of September 30, 2022. Cause ? Oversight on reviewing the cutoff of direct expenditures prior to the end of the award?s period of performance. Effect ? An expenditure below compliance materiality that was incurred after the award?s period of performance was expensed. Management posted an adjustment to remove the amounts applicable to FY2023. Questioned Costs ? None Recommendations ? Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over direct federal award expenditures and ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. In addition, management should seek appropriate training for financial department staff to ensure proper cutoff of program expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? The Association has emphasized the period of performance for all programs. Management has agreed to strengthen controls and provide training for program expenditure cutoff.
2022-002 Noncompliance with Period of Performance and Internal Controls Over Compliance ? 93.569 Criteria ? 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, ?200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h). An entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award?s period of performance. Condition and Context ? Single audit procedures noted one expenditure that included FY2022 and FY2023 amounts. The expenditure included amounts related to October 2022, which is after the federal award period of performance, but was expensed in full to the award as of September 30, 2022. Cause ? Oversight on reviewing the cutoff of direct expenditures prior to the end of the award?s period of performance. Effect ? An expenditure below compliance materiality that was incurred after the award?s period of performance was expensed. Management posted an adjustment to remove the amounts applicable to FY2023. Questioned Costs ? None Recommendations ? Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over direct federal award expenditures and ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. In addition, management should seek appropriate training for financial department staff to ensure proper cutoff of program expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? The Association has emphasized the period of performance for all programs. Management has agreed to strengthen controls and provide training for program expenditure cutoff.
2022-002 Noncompliance with Period of Performance and Internal Controls Over Compliance ? 93.569 Criteria ? 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, ?200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h). An entity may charge to the federal award only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award?s period of performance. Condition and Context ? Single audit procedures noted one expenditure that included FY2022 and FY2023 amounts. The expenditure included amounts related to October 2022, which is after the federal award period of performance, but was expensed in full to the award as of September 30, 2022. Cause ? Oversight on reviewing the cutoff of direct expenditures prior to the end of the award?s period of performance. Effect ? An expenditure below compliance materiality that was incurred after the award?s period of performance was expensed. Management posted an adjustment to remove the amounts applicable to FY2023. Questioned Costs ? None Recommendations ? Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over direct federal award expenditures and ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. In addition, management should seek appropriate training for financial department staff to ensure proper cutoff of program expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions ? The Association has emphasized the period of performance for all programs. Management has agreed to strengthen controls and provide training for program expenditure cutoff.
2022-002 (Significant Deficiency) ? Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance Federal Program: AL 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h), a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the federal award?s period of performance or grant period. Expenses incurred before the grant period can only be charged to the grant if the passthrough entity authorizes those pre-award costs. Condition: The grant period for this grant award began in March 2022. The Organization charged a portion of expenses incurred from October 2021 to February 2022 to this grant. Cause: The Organization failed to consider the grant period start date in their allocation of distribution costs to this grant. Effect: The Organization charged expenses incurred before the grant?s period of performance, which makes these expenses unallowable for this grant. Context: Most of the expenses charged to this federal award was for food purchases incurred during the grant period. Only 7% of the expenses charged were for distribution costs. The Organization followed their regular process for allocating distribution costs to grants using the costs incurred during their fiscal year of October 1, 2021 to September 2022 as their population of total expenses, failing to consider that this grant award period only began in March 2022. However, the Organization was only able to charge a small amount of this allocated distribution costs as most of the grant was reserved for food purchases. The Organization did have sufficient eligible expenses incurred during the grant period. Questioned Costs: None. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: The Organization should review their policies and procedures for allocating expenses to grants and only allocate expenses incurred during the grant period. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and will review their procedures for allocating expenses to grants to ensure only expenses incurred during the grant period are charged to grants.
2022-002 ? Internal Control over Compliance and Compliance with Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Information on Federal Program(s) - Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.351 Assistance Listing Name: Arts in Education National Program Grant Award Numbers: S351A220001 Award Period: October 4, 2021 to April 30, 2023 Criteria or Specific Requirement ? The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303 requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, per 2 CFR Section 200.403, ?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. (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. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to ? 200.308(e)(3).? Condition ? During our test work of 40 payroll samples, totaling $44,233.99, selected to test the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements, we noted two instances for the same employee for which the employee received compensation at a higher rate than the employee?s approved salary letter that was maintained in the personnel file. For the two samples selected, the employee received a total of $13.45 in compensation in excess of the approved amount per personnel file. Cause ? The Center is not adhering to their internal process to ensure all approved salary information was maintained in the personnel file. Effect or Potential Effect ? Without adequate internal controls in place to ensure costs are properly verified and supported, the Center could incorrectly charge expenditures to the federal program. Questioned Costs - Known questioned costs totaled $13.45 and likely questioned costs totaled $1,876. The likely questioned costs were determined by management through examination of the total salary charged to the federal program for the employee who received compensation in excess of the approved amount per personnel file. Context ? This is a condition based on testing of the Center?s compliance. The prevalence of the finding is detailed in the condition section above. The samples were selected using a non-statistical method. Repeat Finding ? N/A Recommendation - We recommend management ensure the Center strengthen their internal process to ensure that employee salary information recorded in the payroll system are approved and supported by salary documentation in the personnel file. Views of Responsible Officials ? The Center?s management agrees with the finding and will strengthen the internal control surrounding the activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs and will ensure the adequate documentation is in place. See the Center?s corrective action for more details.
Finding No. 2022-003 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing No. and Title: 84.027 Special Education – Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $0 Criteria: The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) must be supported by underlying accounting and other records used in preparing the financial statements. 2 CFR 200.403(g) provides that costs must be adequately documented to be considered allowable under Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1)(i) requires that charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: 1. For the year ended September 30, 2022, the total amount of payroll expense under ALN 84.027 determined from the journal entry details supporting the SEFA (or general ledger) was lower by $480,743 as compared to the total amount of payroll expense per labor cost summary (or subsidiary ledger). It was further noted that $404,198 out of this amount pertains to costs initially charged under the program but were reclassified to the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) federal program through a general ledger entry only. No questioned costs are raised as the payroll costs that caused the variance were identified in detail. 2. For 3 (or 8%) of 40 transactions tested aggregating $61,202 out of $3,196,892 in total payroll expenditures, employee timecards were not provided. No questioned costs are raised as summary timesheets were provided. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: PSS did not perform a reconciliation of the general ledger and subsidiary ledger for payroll costs. In addition, PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. Recommendation: PSS should implement a regular reconciliation of its labor cost summary report with the general ledger journal entries and ensure that any discrepancies are resolved or validly supported. Further, PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the finding. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The finding does acknowledge that PSS reclassified the amount under ESF funds. Given the knowledge of the journal entry limitation, PSS failed to show evidence of effort to regularly reconcile the labor cost summary report with the general ledger. The condition remains. Condition 2 – Based on our understanding of PSS’ internal controls, timecards are required to be provided every pay period to support the payment of salaries and wages. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-003 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing No. and Title: 84.027 Special Education – Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $0 Criteria: The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) must be supported by underlying accounting and other records used in preparing the financial statements. 2 CFR 200.403(g) provides that costs must be adequately documented to be considered allowable under Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1)(i) requires that charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: 1. For the year ended September 30, 2022, the total amount of payroll expense under ALN 84.027 determined from the journal entry details supporting the SEFA (or general ledger) was lower by $480,743 as compared to the total amount of payroll expense per labor cost summary (or subsidiary ledger). It was further noted that $404,198 out of this amount pertains to costs initially charged under the program but were reclassified to the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) federal program through a general ledger entry only. No questioned costs are raised as the payroll costs that caused the variance were identified in detail. 2. For 3 (or 8%) of 40 transactions tested aggregating $61,202 out of $3,196,892 in total payroll expenditures, employee timecards were not provided. No questioned costs are raised as summary timesheets were provided. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Cause: PSS did not perform a reconciliation of the general ledger and subsidiary ledger for payroll costs. In addition, PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. Recommendation: PSS should implement a regular reconciliation of its labor cost summary report with the general ledger journal entries and ensure that any discrepancies are resolved or validly supported. Further, PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the finding. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The finding does acknowledge that PSS reclassified the amount under ESF funds. Given the knowledge of the journal entry limitation, PSS failed to show evidence of effort to regularly reconcile the labor cost summary report with the general ledger. The condition remains. Condition 2 – Based on our understanding of PSS’ internal controls, timecards are required to be provided every pay period to support the payment of salaries and wages. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-004 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Assistance Listing No. and Title: 84.403 Consolidated Grants to the Outlying Areas Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $28,975 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 (g) provides that costs must be adequately documented to be considered allowable under Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For 25 (or 63%) of 40 transactions tested, aggregating $39,942 out of $4,631,757 in total payroll expenditures, the Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) form was not provided for differential payments paid to employees. See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. Condition, continued: 2. For 2 (or 40%), no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisitions PS-049031-US and PS-055730-US, which were acquired within fiscal year 2022, totaling $14,299. Cause: PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. The reportable questioned cost is $28,975. Recommendation: PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with Condition 1. Management agrees with Condition 2. Auditor response: Condition 1 – Part T60-30.1-448 (Approval of Proposals to Provide Premium Pay or Differentials) of the PSS Personnel Rules and Regulations states that all proposals for pay differentials as defined herein shall be submitted by the Commissioner of Education on a request for personnel action (form CSC P 1) to the Personnel Management Officer for review and approval. The request must be accompanied by a letter of justification addressing each of the criteria required to support the particular differential. PSS is in noncompliance with its personnel rules and regulations as it failed to provide documentation supporting a request for personnel action, which is determined to be the NOPA for these instances. The NOPA also determines whether the employee is validly employed at date of payment of the differential. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-005 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education (ED) Assistance Listing No. and Title: COVID-19 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund ED Subprogram: 84.425A Education Stabilization Fund – State Educational Agency (Outlying Areas; 84.425X American Rescue Plan – State Agency Educational Agency (Outlying Areas) Federal Award No.: COVID-19 S425A200001, COVID-19 S425X210001 Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $246,285 Criteria: The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) must be supported by underlying accounting and other records used in preparing the financial statements. 2 CFR 200.403(a) provides that costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. 2 CFR 200.403 (g) also provides that costs must be adequately documented. In an e-mail communication to PSS, U.S. Department of Education (ED) had stated that the proposed use of ESF funds for the purpose of paying a 10% retention incentive in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is allowable. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For the year ended September 30, 2022, the total amount of payroll expense under ALN 84.027 determined from the journal entry details supporting the SEFA (or general ledger) was higher by $802,789 as compared to the total amount of payroll expense per labor cost summary (or subsidiary ledger). It was further noted that $404,198 out of this amount pertains to costs initially charged under ALN 84.027 but were later reclassified to ALN 84.425A through a general ledger entry only. No questioned costs are raised as the payroll costs that caused the variance were identified in detail. Condition, continued 2. For 2 (or 5%) of 40 payroll transactions tested, totaling $58,493 out of $32,152,897 in total gross wages incurred under the program, the employee was paid a retention incentive amounting to $3,000 instead of 10% of the employee’s annual salary, as provided by the retention incentive policy. We further noted that PSS provided fixed retention incentive payments amounting to $3,000 for employees whose annual salaries amounted to $30,000 and below, instead of using the rate of 10% as allowed by ED. No evidence was provided to justify the allowability of retention incentives in excess of the allowable amount for the aforementioned group of employees. Total known questioned costs for this condition amounted to $236,490 under ALN 84.425X. Below is a computation of the excess incentive amount for employees actively employed at fiscal year-end: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. 3. For 1 (or 10%), no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisition PS-069896-US, which was acquired within fiscal year 2022 amounting to $9,795. Cause: PSS did not perform a reconciliation of the general ledger and subsidiary ledger for payroll costs. In addition, PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. Total known questioned costs of $246,285 are reported. Identification as a repeat finding: 2021-003 Recommendation: PSS should implement a regular reconciliation of its labor cost summary report with the general ledger journal entries and ensure that any discrepancies are resolved or validly supported. Further, PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the findings described in Conditions 1 and 2. Management agrees with Condition 3. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The finding does acknowledge that PSS reclassified the amount under ESF funds. Given the knowledge of the journal entry limitation, PSS failed to show evidence of effort to regularly reconcile the labor cost summary report with the general ledger. The condition remains. Condition 2 – A review of the communications between PSS and the U.S. Department of Education shows the latter’s approval to provide a retention incentive of 10% of annual salaries. There was no specific approval on the fixed amount of retention incentive provided for those employees with annual salaries not exceeding $30,000. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-005 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education (ED) Assistance Listing No. and Title: COVID-19 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund ED Subprogram: 84.425A Education Stabilization Fund – State Educational Agency (Outlying Areas; 84.425X American Rescue Plan – State Agency Educational Agency (Outlying Areas) Federal Award No.: COVID-19 S425A200001, COVID-19 S425X210001 Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $246,285 Criteria: The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) must be supported by underlying accounting and other records used in preparing the financial statements. 2 CFR 200.403(a) provides that costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. 2 CFR 200.403 (g) also provides that costs must be adequately documented. In an e-mail communication to PSS, U.S. Department of Education (ED) had stated that the proposed use of ESF funds for the purpose of paying a 10% retention incentive in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is allowable. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For the year ended September 30, 2022, the total amount of payroll expense under ALN 84.027 determined from the journal entry details supporting the SEFA (or general ledger) was higher by $802,789 as compared to the total amount of payroll expense per labor cost summary (or subsidiary ledger). It was further noted that $404,198 out of this amount pertains to costs initially charged under ALN 84.027 but were later reclassified to ALN 84.425A through a general ledger entry only. No questioned costs are raised as the payroll costs that caused the variance were identified in detail. Condition, continued 2. For 2 (or 5%) of 40 payroll transactions tested, totaling $58,493 out of $32,152,897 in total gross wages incurred under the program, the employee was paid a retention incentive amounting to $3,000 instead of 10% of the employee’s annual salary, as provided by the retention incentive policy. We further noted that PSS provided fixed retention incentive payments amounting to $3,000 for employees whose annual salaries amounted to $30,000 and below, instead of using the rate of 10% as allowed by ED. No evidence was provided to justify the allowability of retention incentives in excess of the allowable amount for the aforementioned group of employees. Total known questioned costs for this condition amounted to $236,490 under ALN 84.425X. Below is a computation of the excess incentive amount for employees actively employed at fiscal year-end: See Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for chart/table. 3. For 1 (or 10%), no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisition PS-069896-US, which was acquired within fiscal year 2022 amounting to $9,795. Cause: PSS did not perform a reconciliation of the general ledger and subsidiary ledger for payroll costs. In addition, PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. Total known questioned costs of $246,285 are reported. Identification as a repeat finding: 2021-003 Recommendation: PSS should implement a regular reconciliation of its labor cost summary report with the general ledger journal entries and ensure that any discrepancies are resolved or validly supported. Further, PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the findings described in Conditions 1 and 2. Management agrees with Condition 3. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The finding does acknowledge that PSS reclassified the amount under ESF funds. Given the knowledge of the journal entry limitation, PSS failed to show evidence of effort to regularly reconcile the labor cost summary report with the general ledger. The condition remains. Condition 2 – A review of the communications between PSS and the U.S. Department of Education shows the latter’s approval to provide a retention incentive of 10% of annual salaries. There was no specific approval on the fixed amount of retention incentive provided for those employees with annual salaries not exceeding $30,000. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-006 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing No. and Title: 93.356/93.600 Head Start Cluster Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $132,591 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 (g) provides that costs must be adequately documented. 42 U.S. Code (USC) § 9839 (g) and (h) provide that with prior written approval from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start Agencies (HSAs) may use funds for capital expenditures (including paying the cost of amortizing the principal, and paying interest on, loans), such as construction of new facilities, purchase of new or existing facilities, major renovations of existing facilities, and purchase of vehicles used for programs conducted at the Head Start facilities. 42 USC 9839 (c) provides that shared and indirect costs attributable to common or joint use of personnel, facilities, or services by Head Start programs and other programs must be fairly allocated among the various programs that utilize such services. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For 1 (or 2%) out of 40 payroll transactions tested totaling $45,917 out of $3,036,667 in total Program payroll costs, gross wages of $1,101 were incurred by the program under FAIN 09CH01116703 for Employee No. 21199 during the pay period ended 06/18/2022. No evidence of fair allocation of the employee’s payroll cost was provided. 2. For 2 (or 40%) out of 5 samples totaling $131,490 out of $165,367 of equipment tested, no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisitions PS-067026-US and PS-078607-US, which were acquired within fiscal year 2022 under FAIN COVID-19 09HE0009410C6. Cause: PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. The reportable questioned cost is $132,591. Recommendation: PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the findings. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The evidence of fair allocation was not provided. The condition remains. Condition 2 – The evidence of prior approval was not received. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-006 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing No. and Title: 93.356/93.600 Head Start Cluster Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $132,591 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 (g) provides that costs must be adequately documented. 42 U.S. Code (USC) § 9839 (g) and (h) provide that with prior written approval from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start Agencies (HSAs) may use funds for capital expenditures (including paying the cost of amortizing the principal, and paying interest on, loans), such as construction of new facilities, purchase of new or existing facilities, major renovations of existing facilities, and purchase of vehicles used for programs conducted at the Head Start facilities. 42 USC 9839 (c) provides that shared and indirect costs attributable to common or joint use of personnel, facilities, or services by Head Start programs and other programs must be fairly allocated among the various programs that utilize such services. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For 1 (or 2%) out of 40 payroll transactions tested totaling $45,917 out of $3,036,667 in total Program payroll costs, gross wages of $1,101 were incurred by the program under FAIN 09CH01116703 for Employee No. 21199 during the pay period ended 06/18/2022. No evidence of fair allocation of the employee’s payroll cost was provided. 2. For 2 (or 40%) out of 5 samples totaling $131,490 out of $165,367 of equipment tested, no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisitions PS-067026-US and PS-078607-US, which were acquired within fiscal year 2022 under FAIN COVID-19 09HE0009410C6. Cause: PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. The reportable questioned cost is $132,591. Recommendation: PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the findings. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The evidence of fair allocation was not provided. The condition remains. Condition 2 – The evidence of prior approval was not received. The condition remains.
Finding No. 2022-006 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing No. and Title: 93.356/93.600 Head Start Cluster Area: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $132,591 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 (g) provides that costs must be adequately documented. 42 U.S. Code (USC) § 9839 (g) and (h) provide that with prior written approval from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Head Start Agencies (HSAs) may use funds for capital expenditures (including paying the cost of amortizing the principal, and paying interest on, loans), such as construction of new facilities, purchase of new or existing facilities, major renovations of existing facilities, and purchase of vehicles used for programs conducted at the Head Start facilities. 42 USC 9839 (c) provides that shared and indirect costs attributable to common or joint use of personnel, facilities, or services by Head Start programs and other programs must be fairly allocated among the various programs that utilize such services. 2 CFR 200.439(b) provides that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment, buildings, and land; special purpose equipment with a unit cost of $5,000 or more; and, improvements to land, buildings, or equipment which materially increase their value or useful life, are unallowable as direct charges, except with the prior written approval of the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity. Condition: 1. For 1 (or 2%) out of 40 payroll transactions tested totaling $45,917 out of $3,036,667 in total Program payroll costs, gross wages of $1,101 were incurred by the program under FAIN 09CH01116703 for Employee No. 21199 during the pay period ended 06/18/2022. No evidence of fair allocation of the employee’s payroll cost was provided. 2. For 2 (or 40%) out of 5 samples totaling $131,490 out of $165,367 of equipment tested, no evidence of prior approval from the federal agency was provided for equipment acquisitions PS-067026-US and PS-078607-US, which were acquired within fiscal year 2022 under FAIN COVID-19 09HE0009410C6. Cause: PSS failed to ensure that costs charged to the grant are adequately supported. Effect: PSS is in noncompliance with applicable allowable costs/cost principles requirements. The reportable questioned cost is $132,591. Recommendation: PSS should strengthen recordkeeping procedures so that documents are readily available to substantiate costs charged to the grant. Views of responsible officials: The PSS Corrective Action Plan provides a detailed rationale for disagreement with the findings. Auditor response: Condition 1 – The evidence of fair allocation was not provided. The condition remains. Condition 2 – The evidence of prior approval was not received. The condition remains.
Criteria: White House OMB Memo M20-26 which states, "payroll costs paid with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans or any other Federal CARES Act programs must not be also charged to current Federal awards as it would result in the Federal government paying for the same expenditures twice." 2 CFR 200.403 states that "except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criterai in order to allowable under Federal awards...(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. Condition: Management used payroll from a federal grant (Head Start) to apply for PPP loan forgiveness. This same payroll was requested for reimbursement. Such payroll amounts cannot be reimbursed by both the PPP program and other federal funding. Effect: Previous reporting for Headstart grant expenditures was not accurate due to subsequent receipt of PPP funds forgiveness. The Agency is out of compliance with the PPP requirements, standards of White House OMB Memo M20-26 and 2 CFR 200.403. Cause: Management applied for the PPP loan not knowing if their grant funds were going to continue during the Covid-19 pandemic. The PPP loan was applied for 6 weeks prior to the White House OMB Memo M20-26 being issued, therefore Management's interpretation of the rules at that time did not contemplate the disallowance for costs also covered by a separate federal grant program. Recommendation: The Agency should seek grantor guidance regarding deferred grant funds. Management's Response: See the Management's Response to Findings section for management's detailed response to item 2022-001.
Title 2 U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. While testing journal entries recorded to cash in the Special Revenue Fund, which accounts for federal programs, we noted several journal entries made by the Board to cash and expenditures that did not include documentation to support the expenditures. One of these journal entries charged costs totaling $35,913.40 to the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, a nonmajor federal program. The Board did not have procedures in place to ensure costs charged to the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants were adequately documented. As a result, the Board did not comply with the Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants and questioned costs of $35,913.40 will be reported for the Supporting Effective Instruction Grants. Recommendation The Board should establish procedures to ensure all costs charged to federal programs, including journal entries, are supported by adequate documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee The Board agreed with the finding.
Title 2 U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. Twenty-five (25) expenditures were initially tested from the Education Stabilization Fund. The test indicated that the Board recorded a journal entry to charge $627,472.58 to the Education Stabilization Fund that was not supported by documentation. Six (6) additional journal entries were tested and four (4) of these journal entries that charged $405,002.44 to the Education Stabilization Fund were not supported by documentation. Therefore, a total of $1,032,475.02 in expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were undocumented and unsupported. The Board did not have procedures in place to ensure costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were adequately documented. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund. Questioned costs of $1,032,475.02 will be reported for the Education Stabilization Fund which represent material noncompliance to the program, and also a material misstatement to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Recommendation The Board should establish procedures to ensure all costs charged to federal programs, including journal entries, are supported by adequate documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee The Board agreed with the finding.
Title 2 U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. Twenty-five (25) expenditures were initially tested from the Education Stabilization Fund. The test indicated that the Board recorded a journal entry to charge $627,472.58 to the Education Stabilization Fund that was not supported by documentation. Six (6) additional journal entries were tested and four (4) of these journal entries that charged $405,002.44 to the Education Stabilization Fund were not supported by documentation. Therefore, a total of $1,032,475.02 in expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were undocumented and unsupported. The Board did not have procedures in place to ensure costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were adequately documented. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund. Questioned costs of $1,032,475.02 will be reported for the Education Stabilization Fund which represent material noncompliance to the program, and also a material misstatement to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Recommendation The Board should establish procedures to ensure all costs charged to federal programs, including journal entries, are supported by adequate documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee The Board agreed with the finding.
Title 2 U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. Twenty-five (25) expenditures were initially tested from the Education Stabilization Fund. The test indicated that the Board recorded a journal entry to charge $627,472.58 to the Education Stabilization Fund that was not supported by documentation. Six (6) additional journal entries were tested and four (4) of these journal entries that charged $405,002.44 to the Education Stabilization Fund were not supported by documentation. Therefore, a total of $1,032,475.02 in expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were undocumented and unsupported. The Board did not have procedures in place to ensure costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were adequately documented. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund. Questioned costs of $1,032,475.02 will be reported for the Education Stabilization Fund which represent material noncompliance to the program, and also a material misstatement to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Recommendation The Board should establish procedures to ensure all costs charged to federal programs, including journal entries, are supported by adequate documentation. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee The Board agreed with the finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Assistance Listing Number: 93.592 Major Program Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed Criteria: In accordance with 200.403(g) in Subpart E of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), all costs must be adequately documented. This includes all invoices or other supporting documentation associated with program expenses should be retained to ensure the expense was in accordance with the requirements of the federal program and reported appropriately. Condition: Accurate and reliable records are necessary to meet ongoing financial reporting and operations needs and requirements. During our testing of the Organization’s compliance with Assistance Listing 93.592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary, the Organization was unable to provide approximately 17% of the invoices or other supporting documentation selected for testing that are associated with certain program expenses incurred. Cause: The Organization is understaffed and has experienced significant turnover in the accounting and finance department which makes it difficult to maintain internal controls designed to reasonably assure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effect: The absence of expenditure supporting documentation inhibits the Organization from complying with federal program requirements and the potential of disallowed costs and/or repayment to the federal agency. Recommendation: The Organization should retain all supporting documentation for reported expenditures.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary Assistance Listing Number: 93.592 Major Program Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed Criteria: In accordance with 200.403(g) in Subpart E of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), all costs must be adequately documented. This includes all invoices or other supporting documentation associated with program expenses should be retained to ensure the expense was in accordance with the requirements of the federal program and reported appropriately. Condition: Accurate and reliable records are necessary to meet ongoing financial reporting and operations needs and requirements. During our testing of the Organization’s compliance with Assistance Listing 93.592 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Discretionary, the Organization was unable to provide approximately 17% of the invoices or other supporting documentation selected for testing that are associated with certain program expenses incurred. Cause: The Organization is understaffed and has experienced significant turnover in the accounting and finance department which makes it difficult to maintain internal controls designed to reasonably assure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Effect: The absence of expenditure supporting documentation inhibits the Organization from complying with federal program requirements and the potential of disallowed costs and/or repayment to the federal agency. Recommendation: The Organization should retain all supporting documentation for reported expenditures.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-004—Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: All Title: All ALN: All Award year and number: All Pass-through entity (if applicable): All Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Part 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and comply with established accounting policies and practices of the entity. Condition: Accurate and complete records to support payroll disbursements were not maintained for federal award programs. We specifically noted the following: • There is no documentation of an employee’s approved pay rate. • The Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of federal statutes. Questioned Costs: Undeterminable Context: Six of six payroll disbursements tested were not adequately documented. Cause: The Institute was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements regarding allowable costs/cost principles (2 CFR Part 200.403), and compensation for personal services (2 CFR Part 200.430). Additionally, the Institute has not developed formal accounting or personnel policies. Effect: The Institute may not be able to demonstrate that costs charged to federal programs are allowable. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Institute should develop formal accounting and personnel policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management’s Response: Management of the Institute did not provide any comments in response to this finding.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria Per 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.412–415 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), non-federal entities must have consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal awards. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures for the allocation and application of indirect costs to federal awards. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Number: 2022-023 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Agriculture Child Nutrition Cluster ALN: 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Award #: 4V1300308 Award Period: 10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022 Government Department/Agency: Department of Education (VIDE) Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 11 of 104 payroll disbursements and noted the following: • 11 instances where the approved timesheet for the pay period selected was not available for review. • 11 instances where VIDE did not provide support that time and effort is charged in accordance with A-87 requirements. • 4 instances where the NOPA provided did not include any evidence that the employee was approved to be federally reimbursed for the project code utilized in the payroll register. • One instance where the project code on the approved NOPA did not agree with the project code utilized on the payroll register. • 7 instances where the payroll register did not include and employee’s retirement and health insurance benefits for the pay period selected. • One instance where the employee’s pay rate in the approved NOPA provided did not agree with the pay rate in the payroll register. • One instance where the payroll register did not show any hours worked by the employee for the pay period selected. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of VIDE’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2022 were $205,418. The amount sampled is $22,738 The known amount of the instances of inconsistent funding allocation is $22,738. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – VIDE does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that VIDE reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2022-020 Prior Year Finding Number: 2021-019 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Agriculture Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Cluster (SNAP) ALN: 10.551, 10.561 Award #: 4VI400408 Award Year: 10/01/20 – 09/30/21 10/01/21 – 09/30/22 Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 60 of 1,854 payroll disbursements and noted the following: • 13 instances where DHS did not consistently apply funding allocation in accordance with the Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA). Of the 13, we found 5 instances where hours that should have been charged 100% to federal funds were split 50/50 (local/federal) and 8 instances in which hours that should have been split 50/50 were charged 100% (3), 95% (3), 75% (1), and 55% (1) to federal funds. • One instance where an employee’s compensation was charged to SNAP while working on a different federal program. • One instance in which overtime hours noted per the employees’ timesheet did not agree to the overtime hours in the payroll register. Further, we noted that internal controls identified did not appear to be operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned requirements. Questioned Costs – Not Determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DHS’ compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2022 were $3,354,155. The amount sampled is $132,885. The known amount of the instances of inconsistent funding allocation is $6,453. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The Department of Human Services (DHS) adopted the electronic Timeforce (STATS) system for payroll, replacing manual processes. Time and attendance are approved through management levels, with payroll based on Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) cost centers. Financial Analysts reconcile payroll, and a workflow ensures accurate NOPA listings for payroll purposes. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2022-056 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease ALN: 93.323 Award #: NU50CK000507 Award Year: 08/01/19 – 07/31/24 Government Department/Agency: Department of Health (DOH) Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Control Section (a), requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principle process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records; • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – DOH was unable to reconcile the payroll expense include in the SEFA ($2,025,690) with the payroll expense in the payroll register ($1,909,128). As a result, the auditor was not able to establish the completeness of the population and was unable to perform testing procedures. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DOH’s compliance with the specified requirements. Cause – DOH does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to review and reconcile program expenditures. Effect – Lack of proper reconciling information can result in noncompliance with laws and regulation along with loss of funding. Recommendation – We recommend that DOH improve internal controls to ensure program data is reconciled, monitored and retained in order to facilitate adherence to federal regulations and compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Official - The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. DOH acknowledges the auditor's finding regarding the inability to reconcile payroll expenses in the SEFA with the payroll register due to untimely payroll adjustments. To address this, DOH is training its team and ensuring staff have access to make necessary adjustments in the Government Financial Management System starting FY2024. Moving forward, DOH will enhance its SOPs by holding monthly reconciliation meetings with relevant program teams for timely adjustments and continuous monitoring. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2022-063 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles - Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CCDF Cluster ALN: 93.575, 93.489 Award #: Various Award Period: Various Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – We sampled and selected 67 out of 302 payroll transactions and in all instances found that DHS did not consistently apply funding allocation in accordance with the Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA). We found the project code approved on the NOPA did not agree to the project code used on the payroll register. However, in all instances we found the employee’s actual time and effort was appropriately charged to the CCDF program. Thus, internal controls were not operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the allowable costs compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – None. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DHS’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total amount of payroll expenditures charged to the program were $820,305. Total amount sampled was $202,805. Effect – Failure to properly update an employee’s NOPA can result time and effort charged to the incorrect project code resulting in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS improve internal controls to ensure adherence to Federal regulations related to the fiscal and administrative requirements for expending and accounting for payroll expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The Division of Human Resources is updating the Notice of Personnel Actions to include the necessary Project code at the start of each fiscal year. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2022-074 Prior Year Finding Number: 2021-061 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Non-Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid Cluster ALN: 93.775, 93.778 Award #: 75X0512 Award Period: 10/01/2015 – 09/30/2022 Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria –2 CFR Section 200.403, Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs, “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 amounts 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.” Further, the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e. auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition – In the prior year, BDO noted one instance where DHS paid a monthly fee for a trailer to store excess furniture and other administrative items. It was determined that the Medicaid staff no longer needed the trailer. The amount charged to the Medicaid program in fiscal year 2022 related to trailer totals $4,870. Further, internal controls were not operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – $4,870. Context - This is a condition identified per review of DHS’ compliance with the specified requirements. Effect - DHS is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Failure to properly review and support expenditures can result in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause - DHS does not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that expenses are reviewed and approved to ensure reasonability and necessity. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS improve internal controls to ensure adherence to Federal regulations related to the fiscal and administrative requirements for expending and accounting for non-payroll expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials - The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. This was an isolated occurrence during the transition of the MAP program from one building to another. Since the equipment could not be used at the new location, it was stored for future use. The Director of Asset Management now oversees the storage of inventory to prevent similar occurrences in the future. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding No. 2022-016 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior AL Program: 15.875 Economic, Social, and Political Development of the Territories Federal Award No.: D20AP00005 and D20AP00037 Area: Period of Performance Questioned Costs: $494,836 Criteria: 1. A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). 2. A non-federal entity must liquidate all financial obligations incurred under the federal award not later than 120 calendar days after the end date of the period of performance as specified in the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR section 200.344(b)). Condition: Of eight expenditures tested, aggregating $593,531 of a total population of $692,970, the following were noted: 1. For four (or 50%), CNMI was unable to provide supporting documents, such as purchase orders or contracts, to support that expenditures were incurred within the period of performance. 2. For one (or 13%), CNMI was unable to provide the cancelled check to support that the expenditure was liquidated within 120 days after the end date of the period of performance. Cause: The CNMI did not provide sufficient and appropriate audit evidence to substantiate the expenditures over compliance with applicable period of performance requirement. Effect: The CNMI is in noncompliance with applicable period of performance requirements and questioned cost of $494,836 result. Recommendation: CNMI should provide timely and consistent communication with the auditors to avoid future noncompliance due to lack of supporting evidence. Having the correct documentation is crucial in determining compliance to each requirement. Views of Responsible Officials: Condition 1 - The Office of Grant Management (OGM) disagrees with this finding. Due to internal scheduling constraints and the compressed timeline required to complete the FY2022 audit, the requested documents were not submitted by the specified deadline, resulting in this finding. However, OGM maintains all relevant supporting documentation and is prepared to provide it upon request from the Grantor. Based on our records, grant award D20AP00005 remains active with a period of performance extending through September 30, 2025, while grant award D20AP00037 was closed on September 30, 2024. Both grants remained operational well beyond the originally prescribed September 30, 2022 deadline. Given the extended period of performance authorized by the awarding agency, all associated questioned costs ($494,660.00) are supported by active grant activity and should be deemed allowable. Accordingly, OGM respectfully requests that these questioned costs be removed, as they reflect legitimate expenditures incurred within the approved grant periods. Condition 2 - CIP agrees with the finding. The responsible official will report progress on corrective actions to the CNMI leadership and maintain documentation of all implemented changes. Evidence of compliance (updated policies, training records, and self-audit reports) will be provided to the auditors upon request. Refer to CNMI’s Corrective Action Plan for additional information. Auditor Response: Condition 1 - CNMI states disagreement; however, CNMI also acknowledges that documentation supporting program costs were not provided. Questioned costs are retained, as costs at the time of the audit were not supported by adequate documentation.
Finding No. 2022-024 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury AL Program: 21.023 Emergency Rental Assistance Program Federal Award No.: 20010001/000021 Area: Period of Performance Questioned Costs: $26,329 Criteria: 1. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.344(c), the recipient must liquidate all financial obligations incurred under the Federal award no later than 120 calendar days after the conclusion of the period of performance; 2. In accordance with the U.S. Department of Treasury closeout activities guidance dated 09/16/22, obligated funds may be expended by grantees for up to 120 calendar days after the end of the award period of performance for allowable administrative activities; and Condition: Of fifty ERA 1 expenditures tested, aggregating $90,179 of a total population of $191,896, the following were noted: 1. For twenty-seven (or 54%), costs were liquidated after the grant award’s end of the 120-day liquidation period of 01/30/23. 2. For one (or 2%), obligating and liquidation documentations were not provided. Accordingly, the CNMI was not able to substantiate that the cost was incurred/obligated and liquidated within the period of performance. Cause: CNMI did not enforce compliance with the applicable period of performance requirements and lacks monitoring control over the verification that costs charged to the program were incurred/obligated and liquidated within the period of performance. Effect: CNMI is in noncompliance with the applicable period of performance requirements and questioned costs of $26,329 result. Recommendation: CNMI should strengthen and enforce compliance with the applicable period of performance requirements and implement and enforce monitoring controls over program costs to ensure that costs charged to the program are within the specified period of performance and implement and establish systematic filing of relevant documentation for easy retrieval. Views of Responsible Officials: Condition 1 - The Office of Grant Management (OGM) disagrees with this finding. OGM recollects prior guidance and program discussions indicating that U.S. Territories administering ERA were afforded greater flexibility in the period of performance, in recognition of their geographic remoteness and the additional time required to receive technical assistance and implement compliant systems. This understanding informed OGM’s administration of ERA funds. Additionally, several disbursed checks were returned, which created reconciliation delays and made it difficult to ascertain the true unobligated balance of the grant until sufficient time had passed for all transactions to clear. To address compliance concerns, CNMI officials traveled to Washington, D.C. in February 2025 to meet with U.S. Treasury representatives and resolve outstanding ERA1 documentation issues. Following those meetings, OGM submitted the necessary reports and initiated the closeout process for ERA1 in accordance with federal requirements. The questioned cost of $26,329 reflects expenditures that were directed toward eligible households impacted by COVID-19. These expenditures were necessary, reasonable, and allocable under 2 CFR 200.403, and fully aligned with the statutory purpose of ERA to prevent housing instability. Disallowing these costs would effectively negate assistance that was properly delivered to beneficiaries and undermine the program’s objective. For these reasons, OGM respectfully requests that the questioned cost be removed. Condition 2 - The Office of Grant Management (OGM) disagrees with this finding. Due to internal scheduling constraints and the compressed timeline required to complete the FY2022 audit, the requested documents were not submitted by the specified deadline, resulting in this finding. However, OGM maintains all relevant supporting documentation and is prepared to provide it upon request from the Grantor. Refer to CNMI’s Corrective Action Plan for additional information. Auditor Response: Condition 1 - Documentation of the afforded flexibility over the period of performance requirements for the CNMI’s ERA grants was not provided. Questioned costs are retained, as costs at the time of the audit were not supported by adequate documentation. Condition 2 - CNMI states disagreement; however, CNMI acknowledges that documentation supporting program costs were not provided.