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.
Finding No. 2022-035 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL Program: 93.767 Children’s Health Insurance Program Federal Award No.: 7510515, 7520515 Area: Period of Performance Questioned Costs: $38,556 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: CNMI was unable to provide supporting documents (i.e. invoices, contracts, etc.) to support compliance with period of performance requirements for two (or 25%) of eight expenditures tested totaling $2,105,155 of a total population of $2,163,439 . Cause: CNMI lacks monitoring control over adequate documentation and systematic filing of relevant documentations supporting program costs. Effect: CNMI is in noncompliance with applicable period of performance requirements and questioned cost of $38,556 result. Recommendation: CNMI should implement more stringent record-keeping mechanisms to ensure timely submission of audit documents upon request of the auditors used for the testing of compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The CNMI Medicaid Office 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, the office 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: CNMI states disagreement; however, CNMI also acknowledges that documentation supporting program costs were not provided.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 21.019, Department of Treasury, Covid-19: Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Identification Number and Year: n/a Pass-through Entity ? Oakland County Finding Type ? Material weakness in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding ? No Criteria ? Per 2 CFR ? 200.403(h), costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Budget period means the time interval from the start date of a funded portion of an award to the end date of that funded portion during which recipients are authorized to expend the funds awarded, including any funds carried forward or other revisions pursuant to 200.308. A non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance. Condition ? During our testing for Period of Performance, it was noted that 8 out of 49 disbursements tested did not comply with the Period of Performance requirements as specified in the Oakland County grant agreement. Funds were disbursed for expenses incurred after the expiration date of the grant. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed ? Actual error of $28,801 was extrapolated to the entire population. Likely questioned cost, (extrapolated amount) are $44,725. Likely Questioned Costs ? $44,725 Known Questioned Costs ? $28,801Cause ? Management did not follow their internal controls to ensure that compliance with Period of Performance requirements were met. Effect ? Certain expenditures were disbursed for expenses incurred after the expiration date of the grant. Recommendation ? We recommend that all expenditures charged under the grant fall within the required Period of Performance requirements as specified in the grant agreement. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan ? Grant expenditures that specify a period of coverage and/or performance will be amortized based on the service contract terms. Amortization costs that go beyond a grant?s expiration date will not be recorded against the expired grant.
2022-004 Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Program Title: Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) ALN: 97.067 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3708603, 3902402, 4164001 3/1/2020 ? 630/2022, 4/1/2020 ? 5/31/2022, 9/1/2020 ? 2/28/2022 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(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: The Office of the Texas Governor (OOG) is the prime recipient of federal awards for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) receives allocations of these funds for individual projects. A Statement of Grant Award (SOGA) is issued by OOG to DPS for each project with start, end, and liquidation dates. For projects with period of performance ending dates during the fiscal year, as stipulated by OOG, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: ? For the twelve sampled transactions, totaling $1,240,691, five of the expenditures, totaling $78,749, were related to costs incurred after the period of performance end date or liquidated after the liquidation period end date. Questioned costs: $78,749 Context: See ?Condition.? Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance or paid after the liquidation date as specified in the project grant agreement. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: DPS should enhance and/or modify existing controls (both manual and automated) to ensure that costs are not charged to a project unless (1) the service dates fall within the period of performance stated in the SOGA, and (2) the costs have been paid prior to the liquidation period end date. Views of responsible officials: The Department of Public Safety acknowledges and agrees with the findings. Through analysis of the exceptions identified in the audit, the Department of Public Safety will work to develop and implement corrective action to further improve the processes.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 21.019, Department of Treasury, Covid-19: Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Identification Number and Year: n/a Pass-through Entity ? Oakland County Finding Type ? Material weakness in internal control over compliance Repeat Finding ? No Criteria ? Per 2 CFR ? 200.403(h), costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Budget period means the time interval from the start date of a funded portion of an award to the end date of that funded portion during which recipients are authorized to expend the funds awarded, including any funds carried forward or other revisions pursuant to 200.308. A non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance. Condition ? During our testing for Period of Performance, it was noted that 8 out of 49 disbursements tested did not comply with the Period of Performance requirements as specified in the Oakland County grant agreement. Funds were disbursed for expenses incurred after the expiration date of the grant. Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed ? Actual error of $28,801 was extrapolated to the entire population. Likely questioned cost, (extrapolated amount) are $44,725. Likely Questioned Costs ? $44,725 Known Questioned Costs ? $28,801Cause ? Management did not follow their internal controls to ensure that compliance with Period of Performance requirements were met. Effect ? Certain expenditures were disbursed for expenses incurred after the expiration date of the grant. Recommendation ? We recommend that all expenditures charged under the grant fall within the required Period of Performance requirements as specified in the grant agreement. View of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan ? Grant expenditures that specify a period of coverage and/or performance will be amortized based on the service contract terms. Amortization costs that go beyond a grant?s expiration date will not be recorded against the expired grant.
2022-004 Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Program Title: Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) ALN: 97.067 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3708603, 3902402, 4164001 3/1/2020 ? 630/2022, 4/1/2020 ? 5/31/2022, 9/1/2020 ? 2/28/2022 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(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: The Office of the Texas Governor (OOG) is the prime recipient of federal awards for the Homeland Security Grant Program. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) receives allocations of these funds for individual projects. A Statement of Grant Award (SOGA) is issued by OOG to DPS for each project with start, end, and liquidation dates. For projects with period of performance ending dates during the fiscal year, as stipulated by OOG, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: ? For the twelve sampled transactions, totaling $1,240,691, five of the expenditures, totaling $78,749, were related to costs incurred after the period of performance end date or liquidated after the liquidation period end date. Questioned costs: $78,749 Context: See ?Condition.? Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance or paid after the liquidation date as specified in the project grant agreement. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: DPS should enhance and/or modify existing controls (both manual and automated) to ensure that costs are not charged to a project unless (1) the service dates fall within the period of performance stated in the SOGA, and (2) the costs have been paid prior to the liquidation period end date. Views of responsible officials: The Department of Public Safety acknowledges and agrees with the findings. Through analysis of the exceptions identified in the audit, the Department of Public Safety will work to develop and implement corrective action to further improve the processes.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework,? issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award; (b) the restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area; (d) whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government; and (e) whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. 2 CFR 200.337 (a) establishes that the Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework,? issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award; (b) the restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award; (c) market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area; (d) whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government; and (e) whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. 2 CFR 200.337 (a) establishes that the Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
CRITERIA Campus management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls over disbursements that are adequate to ensure that all financial activities are properly processed and reported. Additionally, the Campus is required, except where otherwise authorized by statute, to ensure costs meet the general criteria outlined in 2 CFR 200.403 in order to be allowable under federal awards, including the costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. The Single Audit Reporting Package must have a report date nine months after fiscal year-end. CONDITION The Campus did not follow its Board adopted policies for federal regulations regarding disbursements to ensure all financial activities were properly processed, recorded in the appropriate fiscal year, and supported. The Campus did not provide all of the audit information for fiscal year 2021-22 in a timely manner to allow sufficient time for the audit to be completed by the deadline. CAUSE The Campus has not implemented controls over disbursement transactions. In addition, documentation was not always maintained. EFFECT The Campus was not in compliance with Board adopted policies for federal regulations and guidelines. CONTEXT The following items were noted during our review of disbursement transactions: For four of 40 disbursements reviewed, supporting documentation was not maintained. The Campus did not maintain credit card statements for all credit cards. The Campus did not maintain a complete list of credit card users to ensure possession was monitored. For six of 40 disbursements reviewed, dual signatures were not obtained when issuing the check.
CRITERIA Campus management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls over disbursements that are adequate to ensure that all financial activities are properly processed and reported. Additionally, the Campus is required, except where otherwise authorized by statute, to ensure costs meet the general criteria outlined in 2 CFR 200.403 in order to be allowable under federal awards, including the costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. The Single Audit Reporting Package must have a report date nine months after fiscal year-end. CONDITION The Campus did not follow its Board adopted policies for federal regulations regarding disbursements to ensure all financial activities were properly processed, recorded in the appropriate fiscal year, and supported. The Campus did not provide all of the audit information for fiscal year 2021-22 in a timely manner to allow sufficient time for the audit to be completed by the deadline. CAUSE The Campus has not implemented controls over disbursement transactions. In addition, documentation was not always maintained. EFFECT The Campus was not in compliance with Board adopted policies for federal regulations and guidelines. CONTEXT The following items were noted during our review of disbursement transactions: For four of 40 disbursements reviewed, supporting documentation was not maintained. The Campus did not maintain credit card statements for all credit cards. The Campus did not maintain a complete list of credit card users to ensure possession was monitored. For six of 40 disbursements reviewed, dual signatures were not obtained when issuing the check.
Information on Federal Program(s) - Department of Health and Human Services, Assistance Listing Number 93.498 COVID-19 - Provider Relief Fund and American Rescue Plan Rural Distribution, Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Reporting Periods 2 and 3, Agency Fiscal Year-Ended June 30, 2022. Criteria – The Code of Federal Regulations Section 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowable under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Pursuant to 2 CFR section 200.303(a), the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition – During our testing of direct expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: • Two of the sixty expenditures sampled did not have necessary approvals. The original invoices with approvals could not be found, however we were able to determine that the invoices were properly recorded to the general ledger. • Two of the sixty expenditures sampled did not have adequate supporting documentation. • Two of the sixty expenditures had supporting documentation that was coded to cost centers and/or accounts that were inconsistent with what was recorded in the general ledger. However, the actual postings to the general ledger were recorded to the correct cost centers and/or accounts. Cause - Policies and procedures were not appropriately adhered to in certain instances to ensure that supporting documentation was maintained correctly to evidence that costs 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 - We were unable to confirm the allowability, validity, or completeness of the two expenses lacking supporting documentation that were claimed as federal expenditures. Questioned Costs – Likely questioned costs were projected to be less than $25,000 based on the sampling procedures that were performed. Context – We tested a sample of forty direct expense transactions using a statistically valid sample and found four exceptions relating to the absence of supporting documentation and/or necessary approvals. At that point, a significant deficiency was raised and we revised our risk assessment over compliance and determined it to be high risk. We then selected an additional twenty direct expense transactions using a statistically valid sample and found two additional exceptions relating to improper adherence to certain activity level controls, however, no additional compliance deviations were identified. Views of Responsible Officials – The nature of the COVID emergency, and local shutdown orders, as well as the timing of the funding made available to prevent the viruses spread, challenged long established and effective internal control procedures. In response the Agency, under the direction of the Controller, created emergency overrides to existing protocols to be administered within the accounting department that in the cases above were not documented as they would have been under non-emergency circumstances. In order to mitigate the possible impact of these emergency overrides a detailed review for reasonableness of all items funded with the funds appropriated was performed by the Controller prior to the completion of the audit. Internal control procedures for use in future emergency situations will be developed that will address the deficiencies or challenges identified above. Recommendation - We recommend that the Agency ensure its policies and procedures are followed on a consistent basis and for emergency situations, have alternative policies and procedures that can be implemented without delay.
Finding 2022-004 Lack of Internal Controls over Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Office of Naval Research Federal Program: Office of Naval Research Technology and Innovation Development in Alaska ALN Number: 12.300 Award Number: N00014-19-1-2030 Award Years: 2022 Type of Finding: Material Weakness over compliance and noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200.403.g states that costs must be adequately documented in order to be allowable under Federal awards. Condition and Context: There was not an adequate system in place to track the payroll costs charged to this program. The client was unable to provide support for the salary expenses charged to this program, or support for which employees were eligible to be paid from this award, making it impossible to test transactions for allowable costs. Cause: Lack of internal control over allowable payroll transactions charged to the major program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Effect: The lack of supporting documentation allows for the potential for misstatement of expenditures due to employees being incorrectly charged to funding sources for which their payroll is an unallowable cost. Questioned Costs: The total amount of salary and fringe expenditures charged to the program was $749,570. Recommendation: We recommend that Launch Alaska begins to maintain documentation for employees eligible to charge to various programs, as well as maintaining documentation for tracking the payroll costs charged to each program. Management Response: Management concurs with this finding. See Corrective Action Plan.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Federal Communications Commission AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 32.009 – Emergency Connectivity Fund Federal Award Number: ECF202105452 (Year: 2022) Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $63,399 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Emergency Connectivity Fund and Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund programs revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Additionally, Congress established the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) through the American Rescue Plan Act and appropriated $7.2 billion for the purchase of eligible equipment, advanced telecommunications, and information services for use by students, school staff, and library patrons at locations that include locations other than at a school or library. The ECF program provides funding to meet the remote learning needs of students, school staff, and library patrons who would otherwise lack access to connected devices and broadband connections sufficient to engage in remote learning during the COVID-19 emergency period. ECF funds totaling $491,994.00 and ESSER funds totaling $3,963,756.96 were expended and reported on the Jeff Davis County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period, (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, provisions included in Title 47 CFR Section 54.1712 – Duplicate Support state that “Entities participating in the Emergency Connectivity Fund may not seek Emergency Connectivity Fund support or reimbursement for eligible equipment or services that have been purchased with or reimbursed in full from other Federal pandemic-relief funding, targeted state funding, other external sources of targeted funding or targeted gifts, or eligible for discounts from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism or other universal service support mechanisms.” Condition: All expenditures related to the ECF program were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that expenditures for electronic devices totaling $63,399 were approved through the budget process and recorded under the ESSER program. Upon further review, it was noted that reimbursement was requested and received through the ECF program during fiscal year 2022 and the ESSER program after year-end. Additionally, a refund of such funding had not been processed for either of the programs until the issue was pointed out by auditors. Therefore, duplicate federal funding was received for the same expenditure. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $63,399 were identified for expenditures that were reimbursed through both the ECF and ESSER programs. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that these expenditures were initially charged to the ESSER program on the general ledger. However, the director over the ECF program was unaware of this and submitted and received reimbursement through the ECF program, as well. Once this occurred, the duplicate expenditures were not removed from the ESSER program, and ESSER funding was requested in the subsequent period. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission guidance related to the ECF program, and the U.S. Department of Education guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate controls exist to support the allowability of payments from federal programs may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as the grantor and/or pass-through entity may require the School District to return funds associated with the unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to federal program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that duplicate reimbursements are not sought from multiple federal programs for the same expenditure. Additionally, as discussed with management, the School District has initiated a refund in the amount of $63,399 to the ESSER program. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Federal Communications Commission AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 32.009 – Emergency Connectivity Fund Federal Award Number: ECF202105452 (Year: 2022) Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $63,399 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Emergency Connectivity Fund and Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund programs revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Additionally, Congress established the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) through the American Rescue Plan Act and appropriated $7.2 billion for the purchase of eligible equipment, advanced telecommunications, and information services for use by students, school staff, and library patrons at locations that include locations other than at a school or library. The ECF program provides funding to meet the remote learning needs of students, school staff, and library patrons who would otherwise lack access to connected devices and broadband connections sufficient to engage in remote learning during the COVID-19 emergency period. ECF funds totaling $491,994.00 and ESSER funds totaling $3,963,756.96 were expended and reported on the Jeff Davis County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period, (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, provisions included in Title 47 CFR Section 54.1712 – Duplicate Support state that “Entities participating in the Emergency Connectivity Fund may not seek Emergency Connectivity Fund support or reimbursement for eligible equipment or services that have been purchased with or reimbursed in full from other Federal pandemic-relief funding, targeted state funding, other external sources of targeted funding or targeted gifts, or eligible for discounts from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism or other universal service support mechanisms.” Condition: All expenditures related to the ECF program were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that expenditures for electronic devices totaling $63,399 were approved through the budget process and recorded under the ESSER program. Upon further review, it was noted that reimbursement was requested and received through the ECF program during fiscal year 2022 and the ESSER program after year-end. Additionally, a refund of such funding had not been processed for either of the programs until the issue was pointed out by auditors. Therefore, duplicate federal funding was received for the same expenditure. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $63,399 were identified for expenditures that were reimbursed through both the ECF and ESSER programs. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that these expenditures were initially charged to the ESSER program on the general ledger. However, the director over the ECF program was unaware of this and submitted and received reimbursement through the ECF program, as well. Once this occurred, the duplicate expenditures were not removed from the ESSER program, and ESSER funding was requested in the subsequent period. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission guidance related to the ECF program, and the U.S. Department of Education guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate controls exist to support the allowability of payments from federal programs may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as the grantor and/or pass-through entity may require the School District to return funds associated with the unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to federal program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that duplicate reimbursements are not sought from multiple federal programs for the same expenditure. Additionally, as discussed with management, the School District has initiated a refund in the amount of $63,399 to the ESSER program. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Federal Communications Commission AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 32.009 – Emergency Connectivity Fund Federal Award Number: ECF202105452 (Year: 2022) Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $63,399 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Emergency Connectivity Fund and Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund programs revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Additionally, Congress established the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) through the American Rescue Plan Act and appropriated $7.2 billion for the purchase of eligible equipment, advanced telecommunications, and information services for use by students, school staff, and library patrons at locations that include locations other than at a school or library. The ECF program provides funding to meet the remote learning needs of students, school staff, and library patrons who would otherwise lack access to connected devices and broadband connections sufficient to engage in remote learning during the COVID-19 emergency period. ECF funds totaling $491,994.00 and ESSER funds totaling $3,963,756.96 were expended and reported on the Jeff Davis County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period, (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, provisions included in Title 47 CFR Section 54.1712 – Duplicate Support state that “Entities participating in the Emergency Connectivity Fund may not seek Emergency Connectivity Fund support or reimbursement for eligible equipment or services that have been purchased with or reimbursed in full from other Federal pandemic-relief funding, targeted state funding, other external sources of targeted funding or targeted gifts, or eligible for discounts from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism or other universal service support mechanisms.” Condition: All expenditures related to the ECF program were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that expenditures for electronic devices totaling $63,399 were approved through the budget process and recorded under the ESSER program. Upon further review, it was noted that reimbursement was requested and received through the ECF program during fiscal year 2022 and the ESSER program after year-end. Additionally, a refund of such funding had not been processed for either of the programs until the issue was pointed out by auditors. Therefore, duplicate federal funding was received for the same expenditure. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $63,399 were identified for expenditures that were reimbursed through both the ECF and ESSER programs. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that these expenditures were initially charged to the ESSER program on the general ledger. However, the director over the ECF program was unaware of this and submitted and received reimbursement through the ECF program, as well. Once this occurred, the duplicate expenditures were not removed from the ESSER program, and ESSER funding was requested in the subsequent period. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission guidance related to the ECF program, and the U.S. Department of Education guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate controls exist to support the allowability of payments from federal programs may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as the grantor and/or pass-through entity may require the School District to return funds associated with the unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to federal program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that duplicate reimbursements are not sought from multiple federal programs for the same expenditure. Additionally, as discussed with management, the School District has initiated a refund in the amount of $63,399 to the ESSER program. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “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… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: For 8 of the 60 samples selected, EmployIndy was unable to reconcile the provided support to the selection amounts. As a result, we were unable to determine the allowability of these sample selections under the WIOA grant. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are $265,000 of known questioned costs as this is the amount of the WIOA expenditures tested that could not be reconciled to source documents. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, Crowe was unable to reconcile and tie 8 of the 60 samples to source documents after multiple attempts of asking management to aid in reconciling the support to selection totals. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: For 8 of the 60 samples selected, EmployIndy was unable to reconcile the provided support to the selection amounts. As a result, we were unable to determine the allowability of these sample selections under the WIOA grant. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are $265,000 of known questioned costs as this is the amount of the WIOA expenditures tested that could not be reconciled to source documents. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, Crowe was unable to reconcile and tie 8 of the 60 samples to source documents after multiple attempts of asking management to aid in reconciling the support to selection totals. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: For 8 of the 60 samples selected, EmployIndy was unable to reconcile the provided support to the selection amounts. As a result, we were unable to determine the allowability of these sample selections under the WIOA grant. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are $265,000 of known questioned costs as this is the amount of the WIOA expenditures tested that could not be reconciled to source documents. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, Crowe was unable to reconcile and tie 8 of the 60 samples to source documents after multiple attempts of asking management to aid in reconciling the support to selection totals. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: For 8 of the 60 samples selected, EmployIndy was unable to reconcile the provided support to the selection amounts. As a result, we were unable to determine the allowability of these sample selections under the WIOA grant. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are $265,000 of known questioned costs as this is the amount of the WIOA expenditures tested that could not be reconciled to source documents. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, Crowe was unable to reconcile and tie 8 of the 60 samples to source documents after multiple attempts of asking management to aid in reconciling the support to selection totals. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: EmployIndy did not formally review and approve 16 selected WIOA non-payroll expenditures in a sample of 60 to determine that they are allowable under the WIOA federal regulations. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, we identified recurring monthly expenditures that are not formally reviewed by management for allowability under the WIOA grant. We also identified expenditures submitted to EmployIndy by service providers that did not have a formal sign-off/review by EmployIndy management appropriately allocating these expenses to the WIOA grant. We noted that 16 of the 60 non-payroll items selected for testing did not have appropriate documented review. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: EmployIndy did not formally review and approve 16 selected WIOA non-payroll expenditures in a sample of 60 to determine that they are allowable under the WIOA federal regulations. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, we identified recurring monthly expenditures that are not formally reviewed by management for allowability under the WIOA grant. We also identified expenditures submitted to EmployIndy by service providers that did not have a formal sign-off/review by EmployIndy management appropriately allocating these expenses to the WIOA grant. We noted that 16 of the 60 non-payroll items selected for testing did not have appropriate documented review. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: EmployIndy did not formally review and approve 16 selected WIOA non-payroll expenditures in a sample of 60 to determine that they are allowable under the WIOA federal regulations. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, we identified recurring monthly expenditures that are not formally reviewed by management for allowability under the WIOA grant. We also identified expenditures submitted to EmployIndy by service providers that did not have a formal sign-off/review by EmployIndy management appropriately allocating these expenses to the WIOA grant. We noted that 16 of the 60 non-payroll items selected for testing did not have appropriate documented review. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: EmployIndy did not formally review and approve 16 selected WIOA non-payroll expenditures in a sample of 60 to determine that they are allowable under the WIOA federal regulations. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over WIOA subrecipient/service provider claims for accrued expenditures. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, we identified recurring monthly expenditures that are not formally reviewed by management for allowability under the WIOA grant. We also identified expenditures submitted to EmployIndy by service providers that did not have a formal sign-off/review by EmployIndy management appropriately allocating these expenses to the WIOA grant. We noted that 16 of the 60 non-payroll items selected for testing did not have appropriate documented review. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of Labor Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Workforce Development Federal Program: WIOA Assistance Listing Number: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: EmployIndy did not retain up-to-date contracts for 5 out of 8 employees tested and was unable to reconcile fund codes and employee payroll charged to the WIOA grant. It was also noted that for 8 out of 13 timecards selected for testing, it did not appear that the time was approved to be recorded to the WIOA grant. Cause: The condition was caused by a lack of internal controls over EmployIndy administrative payroll processing. Effect: As a result of these matters, expenditures could be inaccurately charged to the federal grant. Questioned costs: There are $23,000 of known questioned costs related to this issue. Context: During our testing procedures over WIOA disbursements for the activities allowed or unallowed compliance requirement, we identified several payroll expenditures charged to the WIOA cluster for which valid contracts were not provided, employee time records did not reflect hours spent on WIOA activities, and reconciliations for the allocation of employee payroll to WIOA were not provided. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a consistent multi-stage review process for expenditures that are to be allocated to the WIOA cluster and that management clearly organize and retain records of purchase to support amounts being listed as expenditures on their SEFA. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.