Reference Number: 2025-009 Prior Year Finding: 2024-011 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor State Department Name: Department of Labor State Division: Division of Unemployment Insurance Federal Program: Unemployment Insurance, COVID-19 – Unemployment Insurance Assistance Listing Number: 17.225 Award Number and Year: 24A55UI000067 (10/1/2023 – 12/31/2026) 25A55UI000116 (10/1/2024 – 12/31/2027) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Cost/Cost Principles – General Disbursements Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement Compliance: 2 CFR section 200.403 states, in part, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (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. Control: 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 comply 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). Condition Documentation to support General Disbursement transactions was not readily available for review. States are required to develop and implement internal controls to ensure proper supporting documentation is maintained and readily available for audit, but the Division of Unemployment Insurance (Division) was unable to provide supporting documentation to auditors on a timely basis. Context For three of sixty general disbursement transactions selected for testing, the Division was initially unable to provide supporting documentation and confirmed lack of support for these items to auditors. After the conclusion of audit test work, the Division provided support for the sample selections, however, it was not submitted for audit review in a timely manner. Questioned Costs None noted. Cause The Division’s procedures and controls are not sufficient to ensure timely submission of requested audit documentation. Effect Lack of effective controls could cause the Division to incur program charges without supporting documentation. Recommendation The Division should review and enhance its procedures and controls regarding general disbursements to ensure that supporting documentation is readily available upon audit request. Views of Responsible Officials We acknowledge that audit ready evidence was not produced in a timely fashion but respectfully disagree that the Division did not maintain this evidence. The lack of timely production can be attributed to lack of awareness of the proper repository where such audit evidence was maintained and/or could be easily retrieved, as opposed to no maintenance at all. We also maintain that the division was able to substantiate all expenses queried. Auditor Rejoinder On October 1, 2025, auditors sent a request to the Division for supporting documentation for sixty samples selected for testing. Documentation was provided to auditors on November 10, 2025, but for three of the sixty samples it was deemed insufficient for testing. Auditors followed up with the Division, requesting additional support for these samples, but it was not provided. On February 17, 2026, auditors met with Fiscal Management regarding the status of the outstanding supporting documentation and were informed it was not available and would not be provided. After this meeting, auditors finalized audit test work, drafted the audit finding, and sent it to the Division for a written response. On March 11, 2026, the Division provided additional support to auditors after the conclusion of audit test work. Auditors acknowledge that support was eventually provided but maintain that the Division’s procedures and controls are insufficient to ensure that adequate supporting documentation is readily available for audit.
Reference Number: 2025-021 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services State Department Name: Department of Health and Social Services State Division: Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance Federal Program: Children’s Health Insurance Program Assistance Listing Number: 93.767 Award Number and Year: SAI000005399 (10/1/2023 – 9/30/2024) Compliance Requirement: Period of Performance Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Material Noncompliance Criteria or Specific Requirement Compliance: 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)). A period of performance may contain one or more budget periods. Control: 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 comply 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). Condition The Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance (Division) was unable to provide evidence that expenditures were incurred during the grant’s allowable period of performance. Context Forty disbursement transactions recorded during September and October 2024 were selected for testing. For forty of forty transactions selected, the Division was unable to provide documentation that the costs were incurred during the grant’s period of performance. Cause The Division’s procedures and internal controls were not operating sufficiently to ensure that expenditures charged to the program were incurred within the award’s period of performance. Effect Costs could be deemed unallowable by the awarding agency if funds are expended and/or obligated outside of the allowable period of performance. Questioned Costs Undetermined. Recommendation The Division should review and enhance its procedures and internal controls to ensure that it maintains documentation that expenditures charged to the program are incurred within an award’s allowable period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials To prevent recurrence, we are implementing the following actions: 1. Enhanced Monitoring Controls o Establish a centralized tracking system for all awards, including start and end dates. 2. Staff Training and Accountability o Conduct mandatory training for program and finance staff on compliance with period of performance requirements. o Assign clear responsibility for monitoring award timelines to designated personnel. 3. Pre-Closeout Review Process o Introduce a formal pre-closeout review 60 days before the award end date to identify and resolve outstanding obligations. o Require certification from both program and finance leads confirming that all expenditures fall within the allowable period. 4. Post-Expenditure Review o Perform monthly reconciliation of expenditures against the period of performance. o Immediately flag and correct any discrepancies identified.
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Consultant Payments Program Name: Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (Assistance Listing 20.326) Federal Award Agency: Department of Transportation Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Number: 69A36524520310FSPCT Background The Department of Transportation (DOT) Consultant Design Administration Manual defines extra work as work the department orders beyond the scope of the agreement when such work is not reflected in the fee payments specified in the agreement. Criteria Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.317 requires that when conducting procurement transactions under a federal award, a state must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements with non-federal funds. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403(c) and (g) provides that to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be consistent with established policies and procedures and adequately documented. The DOT Consultant Design Administration Manual requires consultants to obtain written authorization from the department before they begin any extra work; otherwise, DOT is not obligated to compensate the consultant for that work. Condition Our review of 11 transactions totaling $46,543,994 disclosed that DOT made a $47,870 payment for extra work performed by a consultant that it did not authorize before work began. Context During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, non-payroll expenditures totaled $105,024,824. We randomly selected ten payments to review, as well as one manual journal adjustment. The sample was not statistically valid. Questioned Costs $47,870 Effect Failure to comply with DOT’s policies regarding extra work performed by consultants may result in unauthorized costs. Cause A lack of management oversight contributed to this condition. Prior Audit Finding We have not previously reported this finding. Recommendation The Department of Transportation should strengthen internal controls over consultant payments for extra work. Views of Responsible Officials “We agree with this finding.”
Activities Allowed or Unallowed – Benefit Payments Program Name: Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) (Assistance Listing 93.791) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Number: 1LICMS300142 Background The Department of Social Services (DSS) is the designated single state agency to administer the Medicaid program in accordance with Title 42 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 431. Connecticut administers benefit payments for the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) program the same way it administers Medicaid benefit payments. Criteria Title 2 CFR Part 200.403 provides that to be allowable under federal awards, costs should be adequately documented. The DSS Provider Enrollment Agreement requires the medical provider to only submit claims for medical goods and services they provided to the MFP recipient. Condition Our review of 40 MFP benefit payments totaling $49,144, of which $36,858 was federally reimbursed, disclosed that one medical provider submitted a claim with $146 of services that the provider did not perform, of which $110 was federally reimbursed. Context During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, DSS processed $18,243,599 in MFP benefit payments and received $13,682,699 in federal reimbursement. The sample was not statistically valid. Questioned Costs We computed questioned costs of $110 by applying the applicable federal financial participation rate to the unallowed expenditures. Effect DSS received federal reimbursement for unallowed expenditures. Cause The medical provider billed for eight hours of services when they only performed two hours of services. Prior Audit Finding We have not previously reported this finding. Recommendation The Department of Social Services should conduct an audit of the medical provider in accordance with Section 17b-99 of the Connecticut General Statutes to ensure integrity of the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration program. The Department of Social Services should recoup any improper payments issued to medical providers and refund the corresponding federal reimbursements to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Views of Responsible Officials “The Department agrees with the finding. The improper payment has been recouped and the DSS Audit Division will open an audit of the provider.”
Activities Allowed or Unallowed – Individual Plans and Service Records Program Name: Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) (Assistance Listing 93.791) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Number: 1LICMS300142 Background The Department of Social Services (DSS) is the designated single state agency to administer the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) program. Connecticut administered certain aspects of MFP through several state agencies including the Department of Developmental Services (DDS). Criteria Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.403 provides that to be allowable under federal awards, costs should be adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.303 requires the non-federal entity to establish, document, and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Procedure No. I.C.1.PR.002.a. of the DDS Operation Manual states that DDS should obtain agreements and approvals for the individual plan during the planning process. The case manager should document who participated in the planning process and obtain signatures on the individual plan. Participants typically include the recipient, parent, guardian, advocate, case manager, support brokers, private agency designee, and other DDS staff. Condition Our review of 25 MFP benefit payments totaling $11,000, of which $8,250 was federally reimbursed, disclosed that DDS did not have signatures of agreement and approval for six individual plans. Additionally, DDS could not obtain service records from one medical provider to support one $46 payment, for which DSS received $35 in federal reimbursement. Context During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, DSS processed $4,978,654 in MFP benefit payments on behalf of 36 DDS recipients. DSS received $3,733,990 in federal reimbursement. The sample was not statistically valid. Questioned Costs $0 Effect The lack of signatures to indicate agreement and approval of an individual plan by relevant participants increases the risk of inadequate services for the recipient. DSS received federal reimbursement for an unallowed expenditure. Cause Lack of management oversight contributed to the condition. Prior Audit Finding We have not previously reported this finding. Recommendation The Department of Developmental Services should strengthen internal controls to ensure it obtains the required signatures for the individual plan for all Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration recipients. The Department of Social Services should conduct an audit of the medical provider in accordance with Section 17b-99 of the Connecticut General Statutes to ensure integrity of the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration program. Views of Responsible Officials Response provided by the Department of Developmental Services: “DDS agrees with the finding. The errors were attributed to current manual processes and case management oversight regarding documenting signatures when individual plan (IP) meetings are held remotely rather than in-person. Most of the deficiencies (5 of 6) were isolated to one case manager. The MFP division is small with 3-4 case managers, causing a higher error rate when extrapolated against the sample size. The missing support service records have been forwarded to the Department of Administrative Services for research. There are plans to improve the individual plan process to enhance internal controls through automation. In the interim, case managers and case manager supervisors will be reminded of the IP signature requirements.” Response provided by the Department of Social Services: “The Department agrees with this finding and the response provided by the Department of Developmental Services. Additional research is needed to determine whether the missing documentation was the provider's responsibility or was due to a billing issue. The Department of Developmental Services is coordinating with the Department of Administrative Services to research this further.”
Eligibility Program Name: Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) (Assistance Listing 93.791) Federal Award Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Award Years: Federal Fiscal Years 2024 and 2025 Federal Award Number: 1LICMS300142 Background The Department of Social Services (DSS) uses several systems to administer the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration (MFP) program. The My Community Choices web portal is the primary system that maintains data about MFP applicants and participants, including client start and end dates. The DSS eligibility management system maintains client eligibility determinations for the program. The Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) processes medical services payments and provides financial reports for federal reimbursement claims. Since the My Community Choices web portal does not interface with other systems, DSS staff must manually input client MFP program start and end dates into the DSS eligibility management system. The DSS eligibility management system interfaces with MMIS daily. Criteria Section 6071(b)(2) of Public Law 109-171 defines an eligible individual for the MFP demonstration project as a person who, immediately before beginning participation in the MFP demonstration project, resides in an inpatient facility, receives Medicaid benefits for inpatient services, continues to require the level of care provided in an inpatient facility, and who resides in a qualified residence beginning on the initial date of participation in the demonstration project. Section 6071(b)(7) of Public Law 109-171 defines qualified expenditures by the state under its MFP demonstration project as home and community-based long-term care services for an eligible individual participating in the MFP demonstration project. However, this is only with respect to services furnished during the 12-month period beginning with the individual's discharge date from an inpatient facility. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.403 provides that to be allowable under federal awards, costs should conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in the federal award. Title 2 CFR Part 200.303 requires the non-federal entity to establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Title 42 CFR Part 431.420 requires the state to comply with the terms and conditions of the MFP demonstration project. MFP terms and conditions require the state to ensure the availability of adequate resources for implementation and monitoring of the demonstration project including tracking participant enrollment, maintaining eligibility systems, and administering effective transition coordination. MFP terms and conditions require the state to develop and amend an operational protocol that details how the state will adhere to statutory and program requirements. Section B of the MFP Operational Protocol includes the following policies and procedures. • Determining MFP eligibility includes ensuring an individual’s annualized cost of care in the community is equal to or less than the annualized rate paid for residing in an institution. • The state will not provide an administrative hearing to an applicant for denied services due to the applicant’s care plan exceeding the allowable cost of care in the community. • The state will suspend MFP participation and services during any inpatient stay. Suspended MFP participants may continue MFP participation upon discharge from the inpatient facility. Condition We reviewed 40 MFP claims, totaling $49,144, of which $36,858 was federally reimbursed, to determine if DSS properly granted eligibility. Our review disclosed the following: 1. DSS did not terminate MFP participation for two clients. DSS processed $918 for the selected claims for these clients. DSS processed $184,088 in additional claims in fiscal year 2025 and $270,274 in claims in prior fiscal years for periods when these clients were no longer eligible under the MFP program. DSS should have ended participation on April 5, 2018, and July 30, 2020, respectively. 2. DSS processed $7,724 of ineligible MFP expenses for two clients during inpatient hospital or nursing facility stays ranging from 14 to 21 days. DSS did not properly track MFP participation dates for these clients in its systems. Additionally, DSS did not properly track participation dates for a third client for seven days of hospitalization. 3. DSS approved two applicant care plans that exceeded the cost of institutional care by $1,530 (19%) and $3,507 (39%) per month. 4. DSS did not perform or document a comparative cost analysis for one client to demonstrate that care plan costs did not exceed nursing facility costs. Context During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, DSS processed $18,243,599 in payments on behalf of 824 MFP clients and received $13,682,699 in federal reimbursement. The sample was not statistically valid. Questioned Costs We computed questioned cost of $347,253 by applying the applicable federal financial participation rate to the ineligible expenditures. Questioned costs were $144,548 for fiscal year 2025 and $202,705 for prior fiscal years. Effect DSS provided MFP benefits to ineligible individuals. DSS received federal reimbursement for unallowed expenditures. Cause The My Community Choices web portal did not interface with DSS eligibility and financial systems. DSS relied on staff to manually input client participation start and end dates in multiple systems. Management oversight did not identify input errors of client participation dates. DSS management overrode applicant care plan costs. The MFP Operational Protocol has no written procedures to override program policies or federal regulations. Prior Audit Finding We have not previously reported this finding. Recommendation The Department of Social Services should strengthen internal controls to ensure that only eligible recipients receive Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration services in accordance with federal laws, award terms and conditions, and the Money Follows the Person Operational Protocol. Views of Responsible Officials “The Department agrees in part with this finding. Condition #1: DSS agrees that participation end dates were not updated timely due to cross-system manual entry limitations. Reconciliation procedures and supervisory oversight will be strengthened. Condition #2: DSS agrees that participation suspensions were not consistently reflected across systems due to timing delays. Monitoring and real-time reconciliation controls will be enhanced. Condition #3: DSS agrees approved costs exceeded institutional thresholds in limited cases. Variances were clinically justified, reviewed, and authorized. DSS will strengthen documentation and internal protocols to ensure clearer policy alignment. Condition #4: DSS agrees that the documentation was incomplete in one instance. Internal review standards will be reinforced to ensure comparative cost analyses are consistently documented. Please note, the Department will not be returning the questioned costs associated with this finding. According to federal regulations, recoveries based on eligibility errors can only be pursued when identified by programs operating under Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Payment Error Rate Measurement program, per section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act and regulations at Title 42 CFR Part 431, Subpart Q.” Auditors’ Concluding Comments The Department of Social Services should amend its MFP Operational Protocol and seek approval from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services if the department plans to continue to use management overrides of care plan costs.
Finding Reference: 2025-002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Entity: California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Federal Program Title: Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing Number: 97.036 Federal Grant Number: FEMA 4482DR-CA-01387 FEMA 4482DR-CA-01680 FEMA 4482DR-CA-02974 FEMA 4482DR-CA-03269 FEMA-4482-DR-CA-PW-00265(2) FEMA-4482-DR-CA-PW06047(3932) FEMA DR-4683 FEMA DR-4699 Category of Finding: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Classification of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Instance of Noncompliance Criteria The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.430, require that costs charged to federal awards be allowable, reasonable, allocable, and adequately supported. Payroll costs charged to federal programs must be based on accurate payroll records and may not be duplicated or claimed more than once for reimbursement. In addition, management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance to ensure federal awards are administered in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and grant provisions. Condition During our audit, we selected a statistically valid sample of 40 payroll transactions and identified 5 duplicate payroll transactions that were included in amounts submitted for reimbursement under the program. Specifically, certain payroll costs were charged more than once to the federal program, resulting in unallowable costs being claimed for reimbursement. These duplicate charges were not identified or corrected by management prior to submission of reimbursement requests. The City subsequently performed a detailed review of the payroll charges included in the reimbursement submissions, identified duplicate payroll charges of $113,551, and reduced the reported expenditure in the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards for the year ended June 30, 2025. Cause The condition was caused by ineffective internal controls over submission of reimbursement requests, including inadequate review procedures to ensure payroll costs were not duplicated prior to submission, lack of reconciliation between payroll records and reimbursement requests, and insufficient supervisory review over payroll charges included in the reimbursement requests. Identification of Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding in the immediate prior audit period. Effect As a result of these control deficiencies, unallowable payroll costs were claimed for federal reimbursement. This noncompliance could result in the City being required to repay the federal awarding agency and increase the risk of additional unallowable costs being claimed in future periods if not corrected. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs totaling $113,551 were identified related to duplicate payroll charges included in the reimbursement submission for grant number FEMA-4482-DR-CA-PW06047(3932). Recommendations We recommend that the City strengthen internal controls over payroll cost allocation and reimbursement processes to ensure payroll costs are not duplicated; implement reconciliations between payroll records and reimbursement requests prior to submission; and provide additional training to personnel responsible for grant accounting on federal cost allowability requirements. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action See separately prepared Corrective Action Plan.
Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Number and Title: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Number: 255GA324N1199 (Year: 2025) Questioned Costs: $7,474 Repeat of Prior Year Finding: FA 2024-001, FA 2023-004 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over the employee compensation process as it relates to the Child Nutrition Cluster. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $60,051,234.81 were expended and reported on the DeKalb County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2025. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish, document, 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 recipient or subrecipient… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.430 – Compensation-Personal Services prescribe standards for documentation of personnel expenses and state, in part, that “(a) … Costs for compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy… specific requirements… and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the recipient or subrecipient consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a recipient’s or subrecipient’s laws, rules or written policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (g)…, [as follows:] (g) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient…” Condition: A sample of 60 employees was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These employees were reviewed to determine if internal controls were properly functioning, and applicable compliance requirements were met. The following deficiencies were noted: • One employee was paid on the incorrect pay scale and thus was overpaid by $4,903. • Two employees were paid on the incorrect pay scale and thus were underpaid by $1,287. • Additional pay totaling $967 for 2 employees was incorrectly charged to the federal program. • Documentation of retrospective pay totaling $317 could not be located for 1 employee. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $1,643,657 in personnel services expenditures, known questioned costs of $7,474 were identified for payroll charges not supported by adequate documentation. Using the total personnel services expenditure population of $20,618,901 (excluding benefits payments), we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $93,759. The following Assistance Listing Numbers were affected by known and likely questioned costs: 10.553 and 10.555. Cause: A lack of oversight by personnel in the Office of Federal Grants and Program Compliance led to noncompliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance in relation to charging of personnel costs to a federal program. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to pay employees with CNC funds the appropriate amount and/or maintain documentation supporting those payments could result in the expenditure of funds for unallowable purposes. This may also expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages within the CNC funds as ED or GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with improperly documented expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate their internal control process related to the approval and retention of documentation to support employee compensation payments. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that CNC employees are paid appropriately. Furthermore, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are functioning properly. Views of Responsible Officials: The District acknowledges the audit team’s findings regarding undocumented additional pay and the isolated instances of overpayment identified during the testing of School Food Nutrition program. While the District remains committed to absolute fiscal accuracy, we believe the following context is essential for a complete understanding of the program’s scale and the nature of the identified error. • Scale of Operations: The District’s School Food Nutrition program is a massive operation, serving over 90,000 students across 124 separate kitchens. This decentralized environment requires the management of approximately 900 personnel and a total salary expenditure of $20,618,901. • Statistical Significance vs. Actual Error: The audit identified actual errors totaling $7,474. While the District understands that federal auditing standards (Uniform Guidance) require this amount to be extrapolated across the entire $20.6M population-resulting in a projected error exceeding the $25,000 mandatory reporting threshold-it is important to note that the actual identified discrepancy represents only 0.036% of the program’s personnel budget. • Accuracy Rate: Even when utilizing the extrapolated figure of $25,000, the District maintains a 99.64% accuracy rate in payroll processing for this program. We believe this demonstrates a robust internal control environment, particularly given the complexities of managing 124 distinct points of service. • Disproportionate Reporting Thresholds: The District notes that the $25,000 reporting threshold is a fixed statutory limit that does not scale with the size of the Local Educational Agency (LEA). Consequently, a District of our size is held to a significantly more compressed margin of error (less than one-eighth of one percent) than a smaller district with fewer employees and sites. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: While the questioned costs identified by auditors appear to be relatively small in the context of the School District’s overall School Nutrition expenditures, the amounts exceed the reporting threshold established by the Uniform Guidance. This threshold is designed to ensure consistent reporting of noncompliance across entities of all sizes. Given the information reflected above, we reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
2025-001 Unallowable Costs CFDA No: 93.434 Program Name: Preschool Development Grants Award Number: 25FPDGCN-510841-01A Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Pass-Through Grantor: Arizona Department of Education Compliance Requirement: A. Activities Allowed or Unallowed, B. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Questioned Costs: $1,034.75 Summary of Finding: Material weakness in internal controls over compliance and compliance Repeat Finding? No Condition During testing of expenses charged to the Preschool Development Grants program (PDG), Assistance Listing Number 93.434, we identified two of 33 expenses tested totaling $1,467.53 that were determined to be unallowable under the Federal award. A nonstatistical sample of 33 expenditures was selected for testing from the PDG program. The total sample amount tested was $164,654. Criteria Uniform Guidance 2 CFR §200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs establishes that costs charged to a Federal award must meet the following criteria to be allowable: Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable to the award. Be adequately documented and consistent with the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Additionally, non-Federal entities must maintain financial management systems that ensure Federal award expenditures comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (2 CFR §200.302 – Financial Management) The PDG was authorized under Section 9212 of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Public Law 114-95, and funds must be used only for allowable program activities consistent with the grant’s objectives and federal cost principles. Cause Controls over the review and approval of expenditures charged to the Federal program were not sufficient to ensure that all costs incurred complied with Federal cost principles and program requirements prior to being charged to the grant. Effect As a result of the control deficiency, the District charged costs to the PDG program that did not meet Federal allowability requirements. This resulted in questioned costs totaling $1,467.53 and increases the risk that additional unallowable expenditures could be charged to the program without proper review. Recommendation We recommend that the District strengthen controls over the review and approval of expenditures charged to Federal programs by: Implementing procedures to ensure expenditures charged to the PDG B-5 program are reviewed for allowability prior to being charged to the grant. Providing training to personnel responsible for grant administration regarding Federal cost principles and allowable expenditures. Reviewing current-year expenditures charged to the program to determine whether additional unallowable costs were incurred
2025-002 – Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Federal Agencies: Department of Agriculture Federal Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.182 Programs: Pandemic Relief Activities: Local Food Purchase Agreements with States, Tribes, and Local Governments Award/Pass-Through Entity Identifying Numbers: F4303 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR §200.303 requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Per 2 CFR §200.403(e), costs must be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP) to be allowable under federal awards. Condition: During the testing of non-payroll related costs for the year ended June 30, 2025, two of 20 transactions selected for testing within the program were incurred in the year ended June 30, 2024. This practice is not in accordance with GAAP, which requires that costs be recorded in the period in which they are incurred. Both transactions were incurred and reported within the grant’s period of performance. Cause: The Organization did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure that federal expenditures are properly accrued and recorded in the fiscal year in which the costs are actually incurred. Effect or Potential Effect: Failure to accrue costs in accordance with GAAP may result in expenditures being materially misstated on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards that could lead to inaccurate reporting to the federal agencies. Questioned Costs: Known Questioned Costs: $5,095 Likely Questioned Costs: $31,125 Context: This is a condition identified per review of the Organization’s compliance with specified requirements not using a statistically valid sample. Known questioned costs are $5,095 out of the total non-payroll related costs during the year ended June 30, 2025, which were $443,033. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement policies and procedures to accrue for federal expenditures in the period the costs were incurred to ensure costs are being recorded in accordance with GAAP and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is representative of all federal expenditures incurred in the reporting year. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. Management is formalizing and enhancing policies and procedures over cutoff and accruals.
Federal Agency: Federal Government Federal Program Name: Research & Development and Economic Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: Multiple Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Multiple Pass-Through Agency: Multiple Pass-Through Number: Multiple Award Period: July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 Type of Finding: - Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.403: Factors affecting allowability of costs; 2 CFR 200.413: Direct costs; 2 CFR 200.414: Indirect costs, OSU Policy 4-0135. Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.303, nonfederal entities receiving federal awards are required to establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. Condition: Oklahoma State University’s (OSU) policies were not consistently followed related to Professional Engineering Service (PES) rates charged by Oklahoma Aerospace Institute for Research and Education (OAIRE), a department within OSU. Questioned costs: Up to $2,853,832 of which approximately $935,974 occurred in FY2025. Of this $2,853,832, $1,333,596 was related to cost-reimbursable agreements, $1,159,037 to time and materials agreements, $221,613 to fixed price agreements, and $139,586 to undefined agreements. Context: OAIRE developed (PES) rates, which are the types of hourly rates typically used by contractors in time-and-materials type federal agreements. In some instances, OAIRE charged these fixed hourly rates for PES work in cost-reimbursable federal agreements, which resulted in OAIRE charging more than its actual costs incurred for such PES work. In addition, the PES rates were not consistent with OSU’s facilities and administration (F&A) rate agreement in that they included costs typically charged as indirect in its direct cost labor rates without justification and defining special circumstances when bidding contract rates. Certain labor rates were also calculated based on an understated number of available hours, which resulted in an overstated PES rate. Cause: Professional services rates were developed without documented review or attestation by subject matter experts in research administration or sponsored programs. Effect: Failure to adhere to costing principles may result in questioned costs and overbilling to sponsors. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that OSU should notify the applicable sponsors and federal agencies regarding the calculated questioned costs and make any necessary repayments or adjustments. Further, OSU should develop and document a process to ensure the PES rates are developed and billed in accordance with OSU Policy, applicable federal regulations, and the requirements of OSU’s Federal Agreements. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Improper Calculation of Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) Base for Indirect Cost Allocation Federal Programs Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN 17.258, 17.259, and 17.278 Federal Agency U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Compliance Requirement Indirect Cost Finding Type Significant deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria The Department’s indirect cost calculations were required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Guidance and the Department’s negotiated indirect cost rate agreement (“NICRA”). Specifically: 2 CFR §200.68 defines Modified Total Direct Cost (“MTDC”) as including “all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward,” and expressly excludes “the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000.” 2 CFR §200.403 provides that costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to the federal award, and must conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in the Uniform Guidance or the federal award. 2 CFR §200.414 establishes the federal framework for indirect (F&A) costs and requires the use of the negotiated indirect cost rate methodology approved by the cognizant agency. The Department’s NICRA further established the approved indirect cost base as MTDC. Accordingly, when calculating indirect costs, the Department was required to apply its negotiated indirect cost rate to an MTDC base that excluded the portion of each subaward or subcontract in excess of $25,000. Condition The Department recorded indirect cost transactions using an incorrect Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base for the year ended June 30, 2025. The approved indirect cost methodology establishes the base as total direct costs excluding subawards and subcontracts in excess of $25,000. However, the Department did not apply the $25,000 limitation when calculating the MTDC base and included the full amount of certain subgrants and subcontracts in the base used to allocate indirect costs. As a result, the MTDC base used by the Department to calculate indirect costs was overstated, which affected the allocation of indirect costs charged to the programs. Cause The deficiency occurred because the Department did not implement adequate review controls over the calculation and application of the Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base used to allocate indirect costs. Specifically, the Department did not ensure that the MTDC base excluded the portion of subawards and subcontracts in excess of $25,000, as required by the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and Uniform Guidance. As a result, indirect costs were calculated using an incorrect cost base. Effect As a result of applying an incorrect Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base, the Department overstated the cost base used to calculate indirect costs. This condition may have resulted in indirect costs being improperly allocated to federal programs. Consequently, amounts charged to federal awards may not comply with the limitations established in the Uniform Guidance and the Department’s Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). If not corrected, this condition increases the risk of misallocation of costs among programs and potential disallowance of indirect costs by the federal awarding agency. Questioned Costs The error was detected before the issuance of the basic financial statements and therefore, the transaction was adjusted and recorded correctly. Therefore, there is no questioned cost. Identification as a Repeated Finding This is not a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit. Recommendation We recommend that the Department strengthen its internal controls over the calculation and application of indirect costs to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) and Uniform Guidance. Specifically, the Department should establish procedures to verify that the Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) base is calculated in accordance with federal regulations, including the exclusion of the portion of subawards and subcontracts in excess of $25,000. The Department should also implement a formal supervisory review of the MTDC base and indirect cost calculations prior to charging indirect costs to federal programs. In addition, the Department should provide guidance or training to personnel responsible for grant accounting to ensure consistent application of NICRA requirements and federal cost principles. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions Management of the Department agrees with this finding. Refer to the corrective action plan on pages 114-119.
Federal Agency: 11 – Department of Commerce, 12 – Department of Defense, 15 – Department of the Interior, 16 – Department of Justice, 43 – National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 47 – National Science Foundation, 81 – Department of Energy, 84 – Department of Education, 93 – Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: R&D Cluster and TRIO Cluster Assistance Listing Number: R&D and 84.TRIO Award Period: July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403(a), costs charged to Federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the Federal award. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.309 requires costs to be incurred during the approved period of performance of the Federal award. Further, 2 CFR §200.302(a) requires non‑Federal entities to maintain financial management systems that provide for accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award, and 2 CFR §200.303 requires non‑Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards. Condition/Context: The population sizes below are presented only for programs in which exceptions were identified for the applicable compliance test. Cash Disbursement Testing – TRIO Cluster (Control Finding Only): • For 2 of the 40 TRIO samples tested, the related expenses were allowable and incurred within the awards’ approved periods of performance; however, the expenses were improperly recorded in fiscal year 2025. Specifically, 1 expense related to fiscal year 2024, and 1 expense represented a prepayment for a fiscal year 2026 cost. The resulting misstatement to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) totaled $5,260, which is less than program materiality. Payroll Testing – R&D Cluster (Control Finding Only): • For 10 of the 40 R&D samples tested, timesheets were not submitted timely, resulting in variances between the payroll register and the recalculated gross wages for the applicable pay periods. No unallowable payroll costs were identified; however, controls over timely payroll documentation and reconciliation did not operate effectively. • For 1 of the 40 R&D samples tested, the timesheet was not signed by the supervisor, indicating that payroll review controls were not consistently applied. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Although the costs tested were allowable and incurred within the approved periods of performance, improper period recognition and untimely or incomplete payroll documentation increase the risk that Federal expenditures are not recorded in the proper fiscal period and that Federal financial reporting is not accurate. Cause: The UEC’s internal controls were not designed or implemented to consistently ensure that expenditures are recorded in the proper fiscal period and that payroll documentation is submitted, reviewed, and approved timely. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the UEC strengthen its controls over expenditure recognition to ensure costs are recorded in the appropriate fiscal period and enhance payroll review procedures to ensure timesheets are submitted and reviewed timely to support accurate payroll reporting. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Passed through Colorado Department of Education National School Lunch Program (Child Nutrition Cluster) / ALN 10.555 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Non- Compliance Criteria: Federal regulations require that recipients of federal awards maintain adequate records to support amounts claimed for reimbursement. Under 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.302, costs must be adequately documented and supported, and financial management systems must provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally funded program. Additionally, USDA program guidance requires entities to retain documentation supporting daily meal counts and reimbursement claims. Condition: During testing of National School Lunch Program reimbursements, the District was unable to provide adequate supporting documentation for a sample of meal reimbursement claims relating to sack lunches/field meals during the District’s football season. As a result, we were unable to verify that the reimbursement amounts claimed were fully supported and allowable under program requirements. Questioned Costs: Estimated questioned costs for which there is projected to be no support for totals $53,772, which is an extrapolation of the $6,140 that did not have support in the $48,798 we tested for a sample month, multiplied by the total National School Lunch Program expenditures of $427,357 in 2025. Context: A non-statistical sample of 1 month of reimbursements from the fiscal year were selected for testing. Effect: Because sufficient documentation was not available, the allowability and accuracy of certain National School Lunch Program reimbursements could not be fully substantiated. This resulted in questioned costs related to unsupported reimbursements. Cause: The District did not have a formalized process to ensure that all required supporting documentation for meal counts and reimbursement calculations was retained and centrally maintained. In addition, staff turnover and reliance on manual processes contributed to missing or incomplete records. Identification as a repeat finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that the Entity strengthen internal controls over the National School Lunch Program by implementing formal procedures to ensure that daily meal counts, edit checks, and reimbursement calculations are properly documented, reviewed, and retained in accordance with federal requirements. Management should also ensure that reimbursement claims are reconciled to supporting records prior to submission. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The District agrees with the finding. See separate corrective action plan at page for planned corrective action.
Finding Number: 2025-008 State/Educational Agency(s): Arkansas Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Not Applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 21.027 – COVID 19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award Number(s): SLFRP3627 Federal Award Year(s): 2021 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Allowable Costs / Cost Principles Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding: Not applicable Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403(g), costs must be adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards. Condition and Context: ALA staff selected five payments to literacy coaching contractors who provide services under the Literacy Empowerment Accountability Readiness Networking and School Safety (LEARNS) Act to determine if sufficient, appropriate documentation was maintained to support that reimbursements were made for allowable literacy coaching expenses. ALA review revealed the following: • Of the 32 schools that received literacy coaching services from a contractor, 3 were randomly selected for testing. The Agency did not have adequate supporting documentation, including a description of daily activities performed by the contracted coach (e.g., a daily log), for two of the three schools. Questioned costs for this contractor totaled $109,557. • Of the 22 schools that received literacy coaching services from a different contractor, 2 were randomly selected for testing. The Agency did not have adequate supporting documentation, including a description of daily activities performed by the coach (e.g., a daily log), for either of the schools. Questioned costs for this contractor totaled $36,000. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: $145,557 – SLFRP3627 Cause: Discussion with Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) management indicates they were unaware of uniform guidance documentation requirements for costs charged to federal programs. In addition, the Agency did not have controls in place to ensure a review of documentation supporting invoices was properly performed prior to issuing payments. Effect: Payments to literacy coaching contractors may have been issued without the contractor performing the contractual obligations. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency strengthen controls by providing training to Agency personnel approving disbursements to literacy coaching contractors, as well as to literacy coaching contractors, to ensure all costs are adequately documented. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: During the audit, initial evidence was submitted, including monthly and daily logs from vendor coaches to verify coaching activities. Additional documentation, including daily logs obtained from vendors, is available for review. Adjustments and recommendations that have resulted from this audit will be incorporated into future processes and requirements for vendor coaches, to further strengthen our oversight and ensure ongoing adherence to required standards. There are procedures put into place to monitor vendor adherence to scheduled coaching days, with vendors consistently held to a high standard and expectation to fully complete contracted days by requiring vendors to do the following: • Submit monthly evidence of coaching activities that align with contracted days. The Division Received monthly summaries from vendors detailing coaching support, activities, and specific dates when coaching was provided. • Conduct scheduled site visits with state content leaders • Complete monthly walkthroughs with school leaders, with consistency of walkthrough data being outcomes-based and providing tangible evidence that coaching actions directly supported the improvement of instructional programs. Data is collected through Jot Form and displayed on an Air Table Dashboard. This has been maintained since 2023. • Hold ongoing meetings with district staff to review outcomes and address improvement areas, ensuring fulfillment of literacy coaching contracts under Agency requirements Transparency and compliance remain a priority. Required documentation will continue to be accessible to support any future reviews. Anticipated Completion Date: Continuous. Contact Person: Greg Rogers Chief Fiscal Officer DESE 4 Capitol Mall, Room 204-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-4475 Greg.Rogers@ade.arkansas.gov
Finding Number: 2025-010 State/Educational Agency(s): Arkansas Department of Commerce – Arkansas Economic Development Commission Pass-Through Entity: Not applicable AL Number(s) and Program Title(s): 21.029 – Coronavirus Capital Project Funds Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award Number(s): CPFFN0186 Federal Award Year(s): 2022 Compliance Requirement(s) Affected: Allowable Cost/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Material Noncompliance Repeat Finding: Not applicable Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403(g), allowable costs must be adequately documented. Arkansas State Broadband Office (ASBO) Administrative Procedures require reimbursement requests to be specific to the project and to be for incurred costs documented by attached source documentation, such as receipts, vouchers, bills, invoices, etc. All subaward expenditures must be allowable, necessary, and reasonable for the proper and efficient administration of the grant; be allocable to the grant; be authorized or not prohibited under state or local laws; and conform to the limits of exclusions in federal laws and regulations. Condition and Context: ALA selected five broadband infrastructure projects, totaling $39,789,080, for testing, from a total of 20 broadband infrastructure projects totaling $127,227,854. During testing, ALA reviewed 247 invoices totaling $20,486,786 and identified issues with 212 invoices totaling $6,666,409. The invoices with issues did not have appropriate documentation to identify the items purchased, to support proof of payment by the subrecipient for the items, and/or to determine the expense was related to the specific project. Also, ALA discovered duplicate invoices and invoices associated with other projects. Many invoices had a combination of these various issues. Statistically Valid Sample: Not a statistically valid sample Questioned Costs: $6,666,409 Cause: ASBO management did not properly review invoices submitted by subrecipients for appropriate supporting documentation. Effect: Failure to obtain proper supporting documentation for invoices may result in the reimbursement of unallowable expenses. Recommendation: ALA staff recommend the Agency follow established procedures for review of reimbursement requests. Invoices should have appropriate source documentation enabling the reviewer to determine the cost meets the criteria for allowability. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: ASBO respectfully notes that Treasury’s SLFRF and CPF Supplementary Broadband Guidance provides that ISPs receiving fixed amount subawards for broadband infrastructure projects are not required to comply with the cost principles of 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E (see U.S. Department of the Treasury, SLFRF and CPF Supplementary Broadband Guidance, available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRF-and-CPF-Supplementary-Broadband-Guidance.pdf) Further, the guidance states, “...[m]ore specifically, subawards that provide for a maximum payment amount that is calculated based on a reasonable estimate of actual cost (see 2 CFR 200.201(b)(1)) will be considered fixed amount subawards even if the subaward agreement also provides that payments to the ISP subrecipient will be limited to actual costs after review of evidence of costs.” Arkansas’ CPF subawards meet these criteria. In short, relative to the applicability of cost principles under the Uniform Guidance, U.S. Treasury treats Arkansas’ CPF subawards as fixed amount subawards, exempting cost principles. Accordingly, ALA’s citation to §200.403(g) under Subpart E is not directly applicable to Arkansas’ CPF Program. Nevertheless, while ASBO maintains that the cost principles standard noted above does not apply to the awards in question, the office conducted a detailed review of the invoices identified. That review determined the following: • A substantial portion of the invoices were specific to approved CPF projects and included subrecipient certification statements affirming project use. • Certain invoices flagged as insufficiently detailed included annotations or supporting documentation sufficient to trace costs to the relevant project. • Invoices identified as potential duplicates were, in several cases, attributable to mixed inventory usage (allowed under GAAP) or subsequent credit/refund adjustments. • A limited subset of invoices (approximately $47,047.79) may require further reconciliation due to a known calculation variance. This funding may be returned, if deemed necessary. ASBO does not concur that the invoices totaling $6,666,409 represent unallowable expenditures. Rather, the observation reflects differences in documentation presentation, invoice formatting, and inventory accounting practices. The office maintains that the costs were associated with eligible broadband infrastructure activities under CPF. Further, in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.201(b)(1), the CPF broadband projects reviewed were monitored through routine oversight and reporting. To strengthen documentation consistency and audit traceability, ASBO is implementing a standardized reimbursement checklist requiring clearer identification of project attribution and supporting documentation prior to approval. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026 Contact Person: Glen Howie State Broadband Director Arkansas State Broadband Office 1 Commerce Way Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 683-6000 broadband@arkansas.gov
Significant Deficiencies Federal Program: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-Through from Maryland Department of Labor Major Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (21.027) Finding 2025 - 002: Transactions Improperly Recorded - Allowable Costs Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200.403(e) requires that costs should be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for such charges to be allowable under federal awards. Generally accepted accounting principles require expenses to be recognized when incurred. Prepaid annual services should be recognized ratably over the contract period. In addition, 2 CFR Part 200.334 requires recipients to maintain financial records sufficient to show compliance with federal statues, regulations, and terms and conditions of the award. Condition: During our audit we identified certain transactions that were improperly expensed in their entirety in the fiscal year. Context: A review of 40 disbursements totaling $570,943 noted three transactions totaling $4,291 that were improperly expensed entirely in the current year. A portion of these transactions should have been accrued as prepaid expenses. Cause: The three invoices were not properly reviewed for the effective term of the contract. Management therefore did not consider the portion of the contract that extended into the next fiscal year to determine which amounts should have been deferred into the upcoming year. Effect: Costs could be deemed unallowable by the awarding agency if not recorded in the proper period in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Questioned Costs: $2,182 of known costs charged to federal awards outside of the proper period. Recommendation: We recommend that management adequately review service contracts paying particular attention to the service period. When the contract extends into the subsequent fiscal year an adjustment should be made to reclassify as a prepaid any portion of the contract that falls outside the current fiscal year end. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: We are in agreement with the finding and will extra care to review service invoices to ensure expenses are allocated between periods properly.
FINDING 2025-002 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024, FY2025 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Form 9 Expenditures The School Corporation submits a Form 9 to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) every six months. The expenditures reported on the Form 9 are used by the IDOE to calculate the School Corporation's indirect cost rate. The rate represents the percentage of indirect costs (overhead, administration) that can be recovered from federal grant funds, derived from the cost incurred in a previous fiscal year. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE in fiscal year 2022-2023 are to be used in the indirect costs computation for 2024-2025 and are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School Corporation's records as to the account or object codes. A test of 53 disbursement line items were sampled from the IDOE Form 9 submitted for 2022-2023 totaling $935,432 and 3 line items were not properly supported by the School Corporation's records. The School Corporation's ledger was filtered for the fund, account, and object code reported on the Form 9, and we determined 3 line item expense variances as follows: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) There were 2 expense line items under reported on the Form 9 by a total of $1,604. There was 1 expense line item over reported on the Form 9 by $8. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance over the Form 9 expenditures was isolated to 2024-2025. School Corporation Expenditures - Indirect Cost Rate In a test of 50 School Corporation expenditures, we were unable to determine if 9 expenditures totaling $29,948.32 were posted to the proper account and object codes within the accounting records to ensure the underlying data used by the IDOE to calculate the indirect cost rate was accurate. Records to support these 9 expenditures could not be located for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance over the School Corporation expenditures were a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance. The School Corporation did not ensure that supporting documentation was maintained and made available for audit, as related to the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure compliance with the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. As a result, amounts reported to the oversight agency were not accurately reported. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure the data submitted on the Form 9's and underlying expenditures are properly documented and retained for audit. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-003 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Level of Effort/Maintenance of Effort Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 24611-036-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Level of Effort - Maintenance of Effort Maintenance of Effort (MOE) is a district-level test that determines whether the School Corporation is providing a consistent level of financial support to public schools from year to year. This rule ensures that the School Corporation does not use special education funds to shore up reductions in state and local support for public education. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) performs the maintenance of effort calculation utilizing Form 9 information provided by the School Corporation from the prior year. As such, the amounts submitted to the IDOE in the prior year to be used in the computation are tested to ensure they were recorded properly in the School Corporation's records as to the account or object code. A test of 53 disbursement line items were sampled from the IDOE Form 9 submitted for fiscal year 2022-2023 totaling $935,432, and 3 line items were not properly supported by the School Corporation's records. The School Corporation's ledger was filtered for the fund, account, and object code reported on the Form 9, and we determined the 3 line item expense variances as follows: There were 2 expense line items under reported on the Form 9 by a total of $1,604. There was 1 expense line item over reported on the Form 9 by $8. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The ineffective internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the 2022-2023 Form 9 information used to calculate the MOE for the 2023-2024 grant award. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.208(b) states in part: "The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may adjust specific Federal award conditions as needed . . ." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance. The School Corporation did not ensure that supporting documentation was maintained and made available for audit, as related to the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure compliance with the Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking compliance requirement. As a result, amounts reported to the oversight agency were not accurately reported. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure the data submitted on the Form 9's and underlying expenditures are properly documented. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2025-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-005. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) grant was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act to respond to the Coronavirus outbreak and assist schools in creating healthy learning environments, return students to classrooms, and address local needs. The ESF grant was further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act. The School Corporation did not have effective internal controls in place over the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. A sample of 13 payroll claims paid from the School Corporation's ESF grant were selected for testing. Of the sample, 6 employee pay rates could not be verified to a School Board-approved, allowable hourly pay rate for a high dosage tutor position. High dosage tutors were paid anywhere from $20 to $77 an hour. The School Corporation was unable to provide documentation that the School Board approved a pay rate for the high dosage tutor positions during the audit period. The total amount paid to high dosage tutors during the audit period was $472,354, which were considered questioned costs. In addition, the School Corporation paid a consulting firm to provide general support to the finance department. The expenditures were deemed unallowable as there was no documentation available that the consultants were assisting the School Corporation in preventing, preparing for, and responding to COVID-19. The total amount expended to the consultant during the audit period was $514,156, which were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the costs noted above for the ESSER II and ESSER III grants. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.334 states in part: "Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for the Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annual, from the date of 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. For example, a cost must 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 requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See §§ 200.300 through 200.309. (h) Administrative closeout costs may be incurred until the due date of the final report(s). If incurred, these costs must be liquidated prior to the due date of the final report(s) and charged to the final budget period of the award unless otherwise specified by the Federal agency. All other costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. At its discretion, the Federal agency is authorized to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods. See § 200.308(g)(3). 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) states in part: "Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.404 states: "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. (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." 34 CFR 76.731 states: "A State and a subgrantee shall keep records to show its compliance with program requirements." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1924 (2020) states in part: "For an additional amount for "Education Stabilization Fund".to remain available through September 30, 2022, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically, or internationally . . ." Cause Payroll records were incomplete as the School Corporation was unable to provide documentation that all rates of pay were approved by the School Board. The School Corporation did not include the consultants above in the budget submitted as part of the grant application, and so the School Corporation did not get the required prior approval for the purchases. Effect Without proper documentation, the allowability of the ESF grant expenditures cannot be substantiated, creating a risk that unallowable costs may be charged to the federal grant. Additionally, we could not determine how the expenditures met the purpose of the program. Questioned Costs We identified $986,510 in known questioned costs as described above in the Condition and Context. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 MICHIGAN CITY AREA SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommend that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure rates of pay are approved by the School Board and adequately documented and that costs are allowable. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2025-002 – Indirect Cost Reimbursement Noncompliance with Federal Requirement Program: ALN # 84.282M Charter Schools Program Criteria or Specific Requirements In accordance with: •2 CFR §200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable and based on actual activity; •2 CFR §200.414, indirect costs must be calculated by applying the approved rate to actual direct costs incurred; and •2 CFR §200.305(b), under the reimbursement method, federal funds must be drawn only for costs incurred. Condition The Organization requested and received $130,000 of indirect cost reimbursement during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025. However, only $44,575 was supported by actual allowable direct costs incurred during the eligible period April 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025. The excess amount of $85,425 relates to expenditures applicable to a subsequent period. During the audit, management recorded this amount as a grant advance (liability) and did not recognize it as revenue or expense in the current year. Cause Use of budgeted amounts and lack of review controls. Effect Reimbursement requests exceeded allowable costs incurred during the period, resulting in noncompliance. Questioned Costs None, the excess was adjusted to a liability account. Context This exception was noted in 1 of 1 sample selected of indirect cost claims during the period. Recommendation We recommend that the Organization design and implement controls to ensure reimbursements are reviewed and based on actual costs. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan iLearn Schools, Inc. notes that the excess reimbursement of $85,425 was identified, properly recorded as a grant advance liability, and not recognized as revenue or expense in the current year. Going forward, all reimbursement requests will be based on actual allowable direct costs incurred. Management will establish written procedures for indirect cost recovery, implement a formal review and reconciliation process prior to submission, and provide staff training on Uniform Guidance requirements. These corrective actions will be in place for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026.
Allowable Costs/Period of Performance Federal Program and Specific Federal Award Identification CFDA Title and Number 84.031 Higher Education Institution Aid Federal Award Year June 30, 2025 Federal Agencies U. S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity Not applicable Criteria In accordance with Uniform Guidance §§ 200.403 and 200.309, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, properly supported, and incurred during the approved period of performance. Adequate documentation must be maintained to support all expenditures. Conditions and Contexts During my testing, I noted the following: • Out of twenty-five (25) transactions tested, twelve (12) transactions included costs incurred outside the period of performance (before and/or after the fiscal year under audit); and • One (1) of twenty-five (25) transactions selected for testing, supporting documentation was not provided for audit review. Cause The University lacked effective controls to ensure that costs were incurred within the appropriate period of performance and that supporting documentation was retained and made available for audit. Questioned Costs For the purposes of this condition, I have not questioned any costs. Effect Costs may have been improperly charged to the federal program and may be unallowable. Additionally, the lack of supporting documentation limits the ability to determine the allowability and accuracy of expenditures. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation The University should strengthen controls to ensure that only costs incurred within the approved period of performance are charged to federal awards. Additionally, procedures should be implemented to ensure that all expenditures are supported by adequate documentation and are readily available for audit. Management’s Response The University acknowledges the finding related to expenditures recorded outside the approved period of performance and the missing supporting documentation for one transaction. We recognize that all federally funded costs must be both allowable and incurred within the designated performance period, and that proper documentation must be retained for audit purposes. Corrective Actions 1. Improved Period-of-Performance Verification: The University has strengthened its review procedures to ensure all expenses are confirmed as occurring within the applicable grant period before being charged the award. Both grants management and accounting staff now verify dates prior to posting. 2. Enhanced Documentation Requirements: A shared electronic repository is being used to ensure all supporting documents are uploaded and retained before any expenditure is approved. Transactions submitted without documentation are now automatically rejected. 3. Staff Training: Relevant staff have received targeted training on allowable-cost rules, documentation standards, and period-of-performance requirements under Uniform Guidance. 4. Ongoing Monitoring: Periodic internal reviews will be conducted to verify continued compliance and ensure that all costs charged to federal awards are timely, appropriate, and fully supported, and charged within the required time periods. The University believes these actions address the issues noted and will strengthen internal controls over federal expenditures moving forward.
2025-006 Allowability of Rental Assistance Payments - Unallowable Program Expenditure U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Continuum of Care Program—Assistance Listing No. 14.267 Hennepin County Contract HS00001366; Grant Period – Year ended June 30, 2025 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Noncompliance Other Matter Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403(a) requires that costs charged to Federal awards be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the performance of the Federal award. In addition, expenditures under the Continuum of Care Program must meet program allowability requirements. Cleaning costs are not explicitly identified as allowable rental assistance expenses under 24 CFR 578.51. Condition: One instance of unallowable program costs was noted during our testing of direct program expenses. Cause: Turnover within the accounting department during 2025 resulted in policies and procedures not being consistently followed. Effect: The questioned cost and related extrapolated costs may be disallowed. Context: A statistically valid sample of 40 rental assistance payment transactions totaling $52,138 was selected for testing from a population of 393 transactions totaling $561,523. The audit identified one transaction totaling $2,325 for cleaning costs paid to a landlord, which does not appear to be an allowable expenditure under the Continuum of Care Program. In addition, the cleaning costs exceeded one month’s rent. Total extrapolated questioned costs were $25,040. Known Questioned Costs: Total known questioned costs of $2,325. Identification of Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Agate Housing and Services, Inc. strengthen internal controls to ensure all expenditures charged to the Continuum of Care Program are allowable and comply with applicable federal and program requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Agate Housing and Services, Inc. agrees with the finding and is in the process of strengthening its controls over its review of program expenditures prior to submitting requests for reimbursement.
2025-006 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal program information: Funding agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Title: Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program Assistance listing numbers: 93.912 Award year: 7/1/2024 – 6/30/2025 Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403, to be allowable under federal awards, costs must be adequately documented, be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award, and be allocable thereto under the principles in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E. 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: For the months of May and June 2025, SFRC allocated 100% of the payroll costs of two employees to two separate grants of this program. This resulted in the program being charged twice for the same payroll costs in these months. This error also increased the direct cost base of the program, which also caused indirect costs to be over-charged to the program. Context: Two of ten employees tested in this program. Questioned Costs: Payroll costs of $12,409 and indirect costs of $3,944. Cause: SFRC allocates payroll costs to its federal programs using journal entries. These journal entries are not being independently reviewed and approved prior to posting. Effect: The program was over-charged for payroll costs and indirect costs in fiscal year 2025. Auditor’s Recommendation: SFRC should implement a review and approval process for the journal entries posted to allocate payroll costs to its federal programs. Management’s Response: This was a one-time error when the checks and balances process did not take place because of the timing of notification of an extended grant. The May and June 2025 period was an overlap due to this extension, and normal processes were not followed. Management developed processes accepted by government funders, conducted training to a small group, and began implementation. Accounting staffing was not sufficient to fully train and implement. Contractors have been tasked with training and implementation during fiscal year 2026. Revised accounting staff structure will provide better on-going implementation and monitoring compliance.
Federal Agency: National Science Foundation Federal Program Name: Research and Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 47.076 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: R&D - 2025 Award Period: June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: The Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, requires that expenses be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principals (200.403(a)) and allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received (200.405). Condition: We noted that one out of 8 items selected for period of performance was incorrectly coded to an R&D grant. Questioned costs: $100 Context: The University's review and internal controls over R&D grant charges did not identify an expense that had been incorrectly coded. Cause: The University’s processes and controls did not ensure that all expenses charged to R&D grants were valid R&D expenditures. Effect: An incorrect amount of R&D expenditures was drawn down. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the University review its procedures around review and approval of R&D expenditures to ensure that only valid expenditures are reported. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: National Science Foundation Federal Program Name: Research and Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 47.076 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: R&D - 2025 Award Period: June 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: The Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, requires that expenses be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principals (200.403(a)) and allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to the Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received (200.405). Condition: We noted that one out of 8 items selected for period of performance was incorrectly coded to an R&D grant. Questioned costs: $100 Context: The University's review and internal controls over R&D grant charges did not identify an expense that had been incorrectly coded. Cause: The University’s processes and controls did not ensure that all expenses charged to R&D grants were valid R&D expenditures. Effect: An incorrect amount of R&D expenditures was drawn down. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the University review its procedures around review and approval of R&D expenditures to ensure that only valid expenditures are reported. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Federal regulations require non-federal entities to maintain records that adequately support allowable costs and program activities. Specifically, 2 CFR 200.302 requires financial management systems to provide accurate, current, and complete disclosure of financial results, and 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs charged to federal awards be allowable, reasonable, and adequately documented. HRSA program requirements further require health centers to maintain patient-level documentation to support reported encounters and costs. Condition: During audit testing of patient eligibility and sliding fee scale application, supporting documentation of income was not available for 25 of 40 patients sampled. As a result, the health center was unable to demonstrate that the sliding fee discounts were appropriately determined in accordance with program requirements. Cause: Per HRSA and UDS requirements, FQHC’s must determine patient eligibility for the sliding fee discount based on income and family size, and retain documentation to support income verification for each patient applying for the discount. Effect: As a result, the health center is in noncompliance with HRSA sliding fee discount program requirements, which represents a material weakness in internal control over compliance and results in an increased risk that patients received sliding fee discounts for which they were not eligible or that eligible patients were improperly classified, and that Uniform Data System (UDS) data related to patient income levels and sliding fee discount utilization may be materially misstated. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs could not be determined due to the lack of supporting documentation for the affected patients. Recommendation: We recommend that management reinforce policies requiring documentation of income and family size before applying sliding fee discounts, implement periodic review of patient files to ensure compliance, provide staff training, and accountability measures for intake procedures, and consider adding monitoring on a quarterly basis to ensure ongoing adherence.
Finding 2025.003 – Period of Performance – Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Assistance Listing Number 14.267 - Continuum of Care, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Services, Pass-Through Entity: State of Connecticut Department of Housing, Award Number: 24DOH0901CX, Pass-Through Entity: United Way of Southeastern Connecticut, Award Number: 21DOH1001DA Criteria A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award's period of performance that was authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections, 200.308, 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Condition Certain expenses were charged to the grant that were not properly obligated prior to the end of the grant period. Purchase orders were issued without placing the actual order, or the item was ordered after the period of performance concluded. Cause The Council did not have adequate policies, procedures and controls in place to ensure compliance with the requirements regarding period of performance. Effect or Potential Effect Inadequate controls over period of performance led to expenses charged to the grant that were not incurred during the required period of performance. Questioned Costs $2,113 Context We selected 5 expenditures for testing over the period of performance requirement. Out of the 5 expenditures tested, we noted 2 instances where expenditures were not spent or obligated appropriately in the right grant period. Identification as a Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation We recommend that management implement additional controls and policies over period of performance. Staff who purchase items with grant funds should have additional training on period of performance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials TVCCA recognizes the validity of this finding. TVCCA is strengthening its period-of-performance controls by training all staff with purchasing authority, and finance staff, on grant deadlines, obligation definitions, and allowable spend-down periods. Internal controls will be enhanced by incorporating quarterly cutoff testing into the month-end close checklist. Additionally, cutoff testing results will be monitored quarterly as part of the quarter-end review process.
2025-001 Misappropriation of Funds Material Weakness in Internal Control Condition: Subsequent to the close of the fiscal year, the Authority was notified by its banking institution of potentially fraudulent activity involving disbursements made to a company owned by an employee of the Authority. Upon investigation, management determined that the employee, who had access to the Authority’s check issuance process, directed $155,706 in payments to an entity they owned and controlled. These payments were not for legitimate goods or services. The disbursements were charged across multiple accounts, including both federal and non-federal program expenditures. The federal program expenditures were charged to the Public and Indian Housing program. Context: The fraudulent activity was identified by the Authority’s bank through transaction monitoring and reported to management. The employee was subsequently terminated, criminally charged, and has pled guilty. The Authority is seeking restitution; however, specific repayment terms have not yet been finalized as of the date of this report. Criteria: Under 2 CFR 200.303, the Authority must establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the awards. 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs charged to federal awards be necessary, reasonable, and allocable. Additionally, 24 CFR 990.108 limits Public Housing Operating Fund expenditures to eligible operating expenses necessary for the operation of public housing. Payments made to a company owned by an employee for which no goods or services were received do not meet these allowability requirements. Cause: The Authority did not maintain adequate segregation of duties or sufficient monitoring controls over the vendor setup, invoice processing, and check issuance functions. Specifically, one individual had authority to create vendors, approve invoices, and issue checks without independent review or secondary approval. At the time the fraud occurred, disbursement activity was not subject to an independent secondary review of the overall check run, including the listing of payees and amounts, which could have identified payments issued to an unauthorized or fictitious vendor. Effect: Unauthorized payments totaling $155,706 were made over the nineteen-month period, resulting in a misstatement of both federal and non-federal expenditures. As a result, certain federal program costs were unallowable under 2 CFR 200.403 and 24 CFR 990.108. These expenditures include $115,850 of questioned costs charged to the Public and Indian Housing program during the fiscal year. Auditor’s Recommendations: The Authority should strengthen internal controls over the accounts payable and disbursement process by segregating duties between vendor setup, invoice approval, and check issuance; implementing a dual-approval process for new vendors and all check disbursements; conduct independent reviews of payment reports; and review all expenditures charged to federal programs to identify and reimburse any unallowable costs. Management Response: See Corrective Action Plan.
2025-003 Period of Performance (repeat of finding 2024-005) Program Information Federal Organization U.S Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Numbers 93.224 & 93.527 Health Center Program Cluster Award Numbers H80CS00513, H8FCS41684, H8GC48547, H8LCS51197 Criteria [X] Compliance Finding [ ] Significant Deficiency [X] Material Weakness Title 2 CFR 200.403(h) requires that costs be incurred in the approved budget period for the applicable awards and Title 2 CFR 200.403(e) requires that those costs be determined according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Condition The Organization’s federal expenditures include costs for goods and/or services outside of the approved budget periods for the awards. Cause The Organization’s internal controls over compliance did not include consideration of when the goods were received or services were performed compared to the budget periods for the awards. Lack of understanding of GAAP and the requirements of accrual basis accounting allowed expenditures outside of the applicable budget periods to be claimed as current federal expenditures. Effect The Organization may allocate unallowable costs to the federal awards. Questioned Costs $194,142 (of which $61,155 was previously reported in finding 2025-002 above). Context In a sample of forty transactions, we noted five included expenditures for goods or services that were not provided in the current period. $117,887 of expenditures charged to the program were for goods or services related to future periods. $76,255 of expenditures charged to the program were for goods or services related to previous periods. Recommendation We recommend management personnel authorized to approve expenditures of federal awards be limited to those who have a basic understanding of GAAP and the relationship between the accrual basis of accounting and the period of performance requirements. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective action Management is in agreement with this finding and will take corrective action as outlined below.
2025-003 Period of Performance (repeat of finding 2024-005) Program Information Federal Organization U.S Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Numbers 93.224 & 93.527 Health Center Program Cluster Award Numbers H80CS00513, H8FCS41684, H8GC48547, H8LCS51197 Criteria [X] Compliance Finding [ ] Significant Deficiency [X] Material Weakness Title 2 CFR 200.403(h) requires that costs be incurred in the approved budget period for the applicable awards and Title 2 CFR 200.403(e) requires that those costs be determined according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Condition The Organization’s federal expenditures include costs for goods and/or services outside of the approved budget periods for the awards. Cause The Organization’s internal controls over compliance did not include consideration of when the goods were received or services were performed compared to the budget periods for the awards. Lack of understanding of GAAP and the requirements of accrual basis accounting allowed expenditures outside of the applicable budget periods to be claimed as current federal expenditures. Effect The Organization may allocate unallowable costs to the federal awards. Questioned Costs $194,142 (of which $61,155 was previously reported in finding 2025-002 above). Context In a sample of forty transactions, we noted five included expenditures for goods or services that were not provided in the current period. $117,887 of expenditures charged to the program were for goods or services related to future periods. $76,255 of expenditures charged to the program were for goods or services related to previous periods. Recommendation We recommend management personnel authorized to approve expenditures of federal awards be limited to those who have a basic understanding of GAAP and the relationship between the accrual basis of accounting and the period of performance requirements. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective action Management is in agreement with this finding and will take corrective action as outlined below.
2024-001 Federal Program: COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Assistance Listing Number: 21.023 Federal Awarding Agency: United States Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes standards for determining costs allowable for federal awards. Management is responsible for ensuring that recipients of Emergency Rental Assistance funds are eligible, and that their benefit amounts are calculated accurately. Condition: For one payment selected for testing, the Authority calculated the eligible benefit amount incorrectly. Cause: A secondary review was performed of the benefit calculation, but the review did not detect the error. Effect: One beneficiary received more from ERA funds than they were eligible to receive. Questioned costs: The overpayment identified was $350. Context: We tested a sample of 40 individuals that received payments under the program totaling $170,416 of disbursements out of 15,335 total recipients, with total payments of $75,066,010 during 2024. In our testing we identified that one individual selected in our sample was paid $350 more than their documented eligible rent and utility expenses under the program, due to an error in the calculation of the eligible benefit amount. Our sampling methodology is not considered statistically valid. Recommendations: We recommend that the Authority implement additional procedures to ensure that errors in benefit calculations are detected and corrected in a timely manner. Authority’s Response: We agree that the amount paid was an error. As the ERA program ends in 2025, we are working to review all activity, identify errors, and recover amounts paid in error where possible.
Condition: During our audit of federal award expenditures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, we identified certain instances where costs incurred in prior periods were improperly charged to the current year's federal awards. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires that costs must be "determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).” Additionally, 2 CFR 200.309 states that "a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance." Cause: Management indicated that year-end processing procedures did not adequately identify and properly allocate expenses to the appropriate period. Effect: Improper period allocation of costs resulted in inaccurate financial reporting of federal award expenditures and potential violation of period of performance requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: It is recommended that management implement enhanced review procedures for period-end expenses to ensure a proper cutoff, develop a monitoring system to track expenses by period of performance, and a establish a forma process for review and approval of payments made near the end of a reporting period. Views of responsible officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding and has implemented a corrective action plan to address the identified deficiency.
Condition: During our audit of federal award expenditures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, we identified certain instances where costs incurred in prior periods were improperly charged to the current year's federal awards. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires that costs must be "determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).” Additionally, 2 CFR 200.309 states that "a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance." Cause: Management indicated that year-end processing procedures did not adequately identify and properly allocate expenses to the appropriate period. Effect: Improper period allocation of costs resulted in inaccurate financial reporting of federal award expenditures and potential violation of period of performance requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: It is recommended that management implement enhanced review procedures for period-end expenses to ensure a proper cutoff, develop a monitoring system to track expenses by period of performance, and a establish a forma process for review and approval of payments made near the end of a reporting period. Views of responsible officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding and has implemented a corrective action plan to address the identified deficiency.
Condition: During our audit of federal award expenditures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, we identified certain instances where costs incurred in prior periods were improperly charged to the current year's federal awards. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires that costs must be "determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).” Additionally, 2 CFR 200.309 states that "a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance." Cause: Management indicated that year-end processing procedures did not adequately identify and properly allocate expenses to the appropriate period. Effect: Improper period allocation of costs resulted in inaccurate financial reporting of federal award expenditures and potential violation of period of performance requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: It is recommended that management implement enhanced review procedures for period-end expenses to ensure a proper cutoff, develop a monitoring system to track expenses by period of performance, and a establish a forma process for review and approval of payments made near the end of a reporting period. Views of responsible officials: Management of the Organization concurs with the finding and has implemented a corrective action plan to address the identified deficiency.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), state that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Condition: During our testing we noted: Payroll transactions: Eleven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $2,009 (an absolute value amount of $2,009) where the incorrect percentages were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee’s pay, and Payroll transactions: Seven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $109 (an absolute value amount of $4,405) where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate the employee's pay to the grant - typically, employee salaries are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of an error totaling $91 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate employer-paid employee insurance costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of errors totaling $275 where employer-paid employee insurance and HSA contribution deductions per the employee's pay stub were allocated to the grant at a rate of 100%. Non-payroll and fringe transactions: one instance of an error totaling $884 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate general costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Additionally, we noted inconsistency in the general fund (LSC and two other private grants) allocation basis used during the year - grant hours and projected revenue were both utilized at different times during the year. Additionally, we noted that allocations in the general fund are done using projected revenue. However as revenue was recognized as expenses were incurred for the general fund the allocation based on revenue approximated an allocation method based on costs. As such, the costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant costs and were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. However, we noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. 2024 – 002: Cost Allocation of Expenses to LSC Grants (Continued) Questioned Costs: A net amount of $3,150 of allocated salary expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 09.706060. Context: These 23 instances were noting during testing of 55 disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, and periodic calculations of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records, expense and other data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities and in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federally)-funded and non-LSC (of, federally) -funded activities. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of findings in the immediately prior year. The prior year finding numbers were 2023-003 and 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records Views of responsible officials: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Additionally, the distribution of expenses in the general fund, which includes LSC and two other funding sources, represents a fair method and allocation. Regarding the questioned costs, CLS disagrees with the finding of material weakness given the extremely low total dollar value. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. Federal regulations state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), state that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Condition: During our testing we noted: Payroll transactions: Eleven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $2,009 (an absolute value amount of $2,009) where the incorrect percentages were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee’s pay, and Payroll transactions: Seven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $109 (an absolute value amount of $4,405) where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate the employee's pay to the grant - typically, employee salaries are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of an error totaling $91 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate employer-paid employee insurance costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of errors totaling $275 where employer-paid employee insurance and HSA contribution deductions per the employee's pay stub were allocated to the grant at a rate of 100%. Non-payroll and fringe transactions: one instance of an error totaling $884 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate general costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Additionally, we noted inconsistency in the general fund (LSC and two other private grants) allocation basis used during the year - grant hours and projected revenue were both utilized at different times during the year. Additionally, we noted that allocations in the general fund are done using projected revenue. However as revenue was recognized as expenses were incurred for the general fund the allocation based on revenue approximated an allocation method based on costs. As such, the costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant costs and were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. However, we noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. 2024 – 002: Cost Allocation of Expenses to LSC Grants (Continued) Questioned Costs: A net amount of $3,150 of allocated salary expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 09.706060. Context: These 23 instances were noting during testing of 55 disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, and periodic calculations of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records, expense and other data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities and in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federally)-funded and non-LSC (of, federally) -funded activities. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of findings in the immediately prior year. The prior year finding numbers were 2023-003 and 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records Views of responsible officials: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Additionally, the distribution of expenses in the general fund, which includes LSC and two other funding sources, represents a fair method and allocation. Regarding the questioned costs, CLS disagrees with the finding of material weakness given the extremely low total dollar value. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. Federal regulations state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (45 CFR 1635.4(a) and 2 CFR 200.430), state that federal award recipients must base allocations of salaries and wages costs to grants on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Federal regulations (45 CFR 1630.5 and 2 CFR 200.403) state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities. Condition: During our testing we noted: Payroll transactions: Eleven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $2,009 (an absolute value amount of $2,009) where the incorrect percentages were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee’s pay, and Payroll transactions: Seven instances of errors totaling a net amount of $109 (an absolute value amount of $4,405) where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate the employee's pay to the grant - typically, employee salaries are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of an error totaling $91 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate employer-paid employee insurance costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Fringe-benefit transactions: Two instances of errors totaling $275 where employer-paid employee insurance and HSA contribution deductions per the employee's pay stub were allocated to the grant at a rate of 100%. Non-payroll and fringe transactions: one instance of an error totaling $884 where an unsupported allocation percentage was used to allocate general costs to the grant - typically, costs are allocated to LSC and two other private grants using an allocation base of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund. Additionally, we noted inconsistency in the general fund (LSC and two other private grants) allocation basis used during the year - grant hours and projected revenue were both utilized at different times during the year. Additionally, we noted that allocations in the general fund are done using projected revenue. However as revenue was recognized as expenses were incurred for the general fund the allocation based on revenue approximated an allocation method based on costs. As such, the costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant costs and were not fully representative of the employees’ time and effort. However, we noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. 2024 – 002: Cost Allocation of Expenses to LSC Grants (Continued) Questioned Costs: A net amount of $3,150 of allocated salary expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 09.706060. Context: These 23 instances were noting during testing of 55 disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records, and periodic calculations of a LSC cost driver for the period divided by the total cost driver coded to the Organization’s general fund, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records, expense and other data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments in the Organization’s cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities and in a manner where costs are not applied uniformly to both LSC (or, federally)-funded and non-LSC (of, federally) -funded activities. Repeat Finding: The finding is a repeat of findings in the immediately prior year. The prior year finding numbers were 2023-003 and 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations that are calculated in a consistent manner that ensure costs are applied uniformly to respective benefited activities, and that are reflective on employees’ time and effort records Views of responsible officials: Management partially agrees with this finding. First, 45 CFR Part 1635 codifies the timekeeping requirement. CLS keeps track of every case and time dedicated by staff in strict compliance with this requirement. Additionally, the distribution of expenses in the general fund, which includes LSC and two other funding sources, represents a fair method and allocation. Regarding the questioned costs, CLS disagrees with the finding of material weakness given the extremely low total dollar value. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. Federal regulations state that expenditures are allowable under an LSC (or federal) grant or contract only if the recipient can demonstrate that the cost was consistent with accounting policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both LSC (or, federal)-funded and non-LSC (of, federal) -funded activities.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Condition: During our testing, we noted four instances of errors totaling a net error of $906 (an absolute value error of $1,030) where the incorrect number of hours were utilized in the allocation of the employee's pay, the incorrect employee's time was used in the allocation of the employee's pay, or there were unsupported amounts added to the allocation of the employee's pay. As such, the salary costs mentioned above were allocated in an inconsistent manner to other grant payroll costs and were not fully representative of the employees' time and effort and benefit obtained by grant from the allocated cost. Management noted that it performed year-end grant reconciliations to ensure costs were properly allocated to each grant in total. We noted a lower frequency of differences in sample selections that occurred during the last several months of the year after management implemented a change to its allocation processes in response to the prior year audit. Questioned Costs: $906 of allocated salaries expense described above, which is related to Assistance Listing Number 93.044. Context: These five instances were noting during testing of 26 payroll and payroll-related disbursements. Cause: The Organization’s salary, wage and employee benefit cost allocation methodology is primarily based on time and effort records and a periodic calculation of specific grant hours versus general fund hours multiplied by period costs, but it often includes manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data. Therefore, the methodology is challenging to apply consistently, document contemporaneously, and apply in accordance with federal regulations. Effect: The inclusion of frequent manual adjustments and varying allocation bases in the Organization’s salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology could cause costs to be allocated to grants that are not reflective of the time and effort spent on grant activities nor compensation paid to employees during relevant work periods. It could also lead to challenges in maintaining sufficient supporting documentation of such cost allocations. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization consider updating its salaries, wages, and employee benefit cost allocation methodology and process to reduce the frequency of manual adjustments based on review of individual time records and expense data and maximize the use of automated allocations based on employees’ time and effort records, effective compensation during work periods, and that are calculated in a consistent manner. We also recommend that the Organization maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting all cost allocations. Views of responsible officials: Management does not agree with this finding. LSC program letter 22-5 emphasizes the importance of reconciliations of timekeeping reports with labor costs, distribution report or alternative reports. CLS prioritizes this practice of reconciliation and used it during the last months of 2024 to improve internal controls and minimize potential errors. We do not believe that CLA fully and fairly considered CLS’s thorough and complete reconciliation. A “material weakness” is defined as a deficiency “such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.” Given that reconciliation is part of our internal control process used to prevent and detect/correct any errors, it should have been fully considered and is unfairly excluded from the review. For this reason, CLS considers that this is not a material weakness as the reconciliation caught and corrected these errors. Finally, the total amount of this finding is very low and should not rise to the level of material weakness. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Management’s response did not persuade the auditor to revise the finding. The aging cluster is not an LSC program and so its relevance to this finding is unclear. Federal regulations (CFR 200.403), state that allowable costs must be consistent with policies and procedures of federal award recipients that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the Organization. It also states that costs must be adequately documented. Such costs should be contemporaneously applied to grants as they are incurred using a system of processes and controls.