2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS – 21.027 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury (TREAS) Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2021 to 2025 Federal Award Number: SLFRP0136 Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Administration (DOA), Pandemic Recovery Office (PRO) Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles SUBRECIPIENT PAYMENTS AND MONITORING Subrecipient monitoring procedures were insufficient to identify and remedy a finding reported by the subrecipient auditor that affected the State Fiscal Recovery Fund. Monitoring procedures were not in place to ensure adequate documentation was obtained regarding the use of payment advances. Background: The Pandemic Recovery Office, as the administering agency of the State Fiscal Recovery Fund, executes memoranda of understanding with the various departments and agencies to conduct projects under the allowable uses of the program. The departments and agencies then often execute subawards within the scope of the specific project. Criteria: 2 CFR §200.332(d) “Requirements for pass-through entities” requires that all pass-through entities must “monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved.” That monitoring must include (1) reviewing financial and performance reports, (2) following up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means, (3) issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award. Uniform Guidance cost principles dictate that, in order to be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be adequately documented (2 CFR §200.403(g)). Condition: As part of our testing, we performed an independent review of Single Audit Reports submitted to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) for each sampled subrecipient. We noted a reported finding linked to the State Fiscal Recovery Fund for the subrecipient audit year ended September 30, 2024; the report was filed with the Clearinghouse on June 24, 2024. The report was not reviewed by the pass-through department, and subsequently, no management decision was issued. In regard to the review of subrecipient reports in the Clearinghouse overall, of the 26 sampled subrecipient entities, 18 had filed Single Audit Reports with the FAC. Of those 18 reports, only 3 were reviewed, documented, and management decisions issued as necessary (15 not reviewed; 83% error rate). Additionally, many of these subrecipients receive funding on a periodic basis. Of 31 subrecipient payments reviewed, 3 were payment advances to subrecipients for which no additional documentation or reconciliation was available to support subrecipient expenditures related to those prepayments. We noted several other subrecipient reimbursement payments that were lacking adequate support for the expenditures being reimbursed. Other documentation maintained by the agency to support monitoring procedures was unable to be provided. Cause: Subrecipient monitoring procedures are not in place to ensure audit reports are reviewed and management decisions are issued, as required by Uniform Guidance. Other monitoring procedures were inadequate to ensure that subrecipients appropriately utilized the funds provided to support program objectives. Effect: Noncompliance with program guidelines and/or federal regulations at the subrecipient level could go undetected and unresolved. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Not Applicable RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-044a Enhance internal control procedures to ensure timely review of audit reports and issuance of management decisions in accordance with Uniform Guidance. 2024-044b Strengthen subrecipient compliance by requiring submission of Single Audit Reports to the pass-through department/agency as part of the subaward terms and conditions, prompting the review upon receipt of the reports. 2024-044c Enhance controls to ensure adequate documentation of monitoring procedures performed and support for subrecipient expenditures is obtained. Document any meetings and/or conversations with the subrecipients and discussion had therein.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES – 93.558 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RITANF; 2401RITANF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) CCDF CLUSTER – 93.575, 93.596 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RICCDF; 2401RICCDF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PAYMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENTS Invoices provided by subrecipients for both TANF and Childcare did not include all underlying documentation to support the amount requested. Background: TANF: A State may contract with charitable, religious, and private organizations to provide administrative and programmatic services and may provide beneficiaries of assistance with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement that are redeemable with such organization (42 USC 604a(b), 42 USC 604a(k), and 45 CFR §260.34). CCDF: Funds may be used for activities that improve the quality or availability of child care services, consumer education and parental choice (42 USC 9858e). Subrecipients are required to submit periodic reports (FM-1) and supporting documentation to DHS to receive payment. Criteria: Uniform guidance, 2 CFR §200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, include that those costs: (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). (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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Subrecipients submit monthly invoices requesting reimbursement for cost categories such as Payroll, Overhead, Consulting, Supplies, and Travel. Eighteen out of 25 TANF contract payments tested were lacking supporting documentation for at least one cost category reported on the FM-1. We also noted 19 out of 25 CCDF contract payments were lacking supporting documentation for payroll costs reported on the FM-1. While DHS had obtained documentation supporting the contractor reimbursement request, the documentation was not adequate to fully evaluate compliance with allowability requirements defined in 2 CFR §200.403. Cause: Lack of adequate review of contractor provided documentation prior to reimbursement. Documentation submitted by subrecipients deemed insufficient to evaluate compliance with 2 CFR §200.403. Effect: Reimbursements for unallowable activities could be made by these federal programs and not be detected. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Yes RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-052a Adopt specific policy requirements regarding documentation required from subrecipients in support of reimbursement requests. 2024-052b Obtain adequate and complete documentation to support the allowability of costs claimed under contracts before authorization of payment.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES – 93.558 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RITANF; 2401RITANF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) CCDF CLUSTER – 93.575, 93.596 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RICCDF; 2401RICCDF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PAYMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENTS Invoices provided by subrecipients for both TANF and Childcare did not include all underlying documentation to support the amount requested. Background: TANF: A State may contract with charitable, religious, and private organizations to provide administrative and programmatic services and may provide beneficiaries of assistance with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement that are redeemable with such organization (42 USC 604a(b), 42 USC 604a(k), and 45 CFR §260.34). CCDF: Funds may be used for activities that improve the quality or availability of child care services, consumer education and parental choice (42 USC 9858e). Subrecipients are required to submit periodic reports (FM-1) and supporting documentation to DHS to receive payment. Criteria: Uniform guidance, 2 CFR §200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, include that those costs: (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). (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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Subrecipients submit monthly invoices requesting reimbursement for cost categories such as Payroll, Overhead, Consulting, Supplies, and Travel. Eighteen out of 25 TANF contract payments tested were lacking supporting documentation for at least one cost category reported on the FM-1. We also noted 19 out of 25 CCDF contract payments were lacking supporting documentation for payroll costs reported on the FM-1. While DHS had obtained documentation supporting the contractor reimbursement request, the documentation was not adequate to fully evaluate compliance with allowability requirements defined in 2 CFR §200.403. Cause: Lack of adequate review of contractor provided documentation prior to reimbursement. Documentation submitted by subrecipients deemed insufficient to evaluate compliance with 2 CFR §200.403. Effect: Reimbursements for unallowable activities could be made by these federal programs and not be detected. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Yes RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-052a Adopt specific policy requirements regarding documentation required from subrecipients in support of reimbursement requests. 2024-052b Obtain adequate and complete documentation to support the allowability of costs claimed under contracts before authorization of payment.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES – 93.558 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RITANF; 2401RITANF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) CCDF CLUSTER – 93.575, 93.596 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RICCDF; 2401RICCDF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PAYMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENTS Invoices provided by subrecipients for both TANF and Childcare did not include all underlying documentation to support the amount requested. Background: TANF: A State may contract with charitable, religious, and private organizations to provide administrative and programmatic services and may provide beneficiaries of assistance with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement that are redeemable with such organization (42 USC 604a(b), 42 USC 604a(k), and 45 CFR §260.34). CCDF: Funds may be used for activities that improve the quality or availability of child care services, consumer education and parental choice (42 USC 9858e). Subrecipients are required to submit periodic reports (FM-1) and supporting documentation to DHS to receive payment. Criteria: Uniform guidance, 2 CFR §200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, include that those costs: (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). (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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Subrecipients submit monthly invoices requesting reimbursement for cost categories such as Payroll, Overhead, Consulting, Supplies, and Travel. Eighteen out of 25 TANF contract payments tested were lacking supporting documentation for at least one cost category reported on the FM-1. We also noted 19 out of 25 CCDF contract payments were lacking supporting documentation for payroll costs reported on the FM-1. While DHS had obtained documentation supporting the contractor reimbursement request, the documentation was not adequate to fully evaluate compliance with allowability requirements defined in 2 CFR §200.403. Cause: Lack of adequate review of contractor provided documentation prior to reimbursement. Documentation submitted by subrecipients deemed insufficient to evaluate compliance with 2 CFR §200.403. Effect: Reimbursements for unallowable activities could be made by these federal programs and not be detected. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Yes RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-052a Adopt specific policy requirements regarding documentation required from subrecipients in support of reimbursement requests. 2024-052b Obtain adequate and complete documentation to support the allowability of costs claimed under contracts before authorization of payment.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES – 93.558 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RITANF; 2401RITANF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) CCDF CLUSTER – 93.575, 93.596 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RICCDF; 2401RICCDF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PAYMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENTS Invoices provided by subrecipients for both TANF and Childcare did not include all underlying documentation to support the amount requested. Background: TANF: A State may contract with charitable, religious, and private organizations to provide administrative and programmatic services and may provide beneficiaries of assistance with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement that are redeemable with such organization (42 USC 604a(b), 42 USC 604a(k), and 45 CFR §260.34). CCDF: Funds may be used for activities that improve the quality or availability of child care services, consumer education and parental choice (42 USC 9858e). Subrecipients are required to submit periodic reports (FM-1) and supporting documentation to DHS to receive payment. Criteria: Uniform guidance, 2 CFR §200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, include that those costs: (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). (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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Subrecipients submit monthly invoices requesting reimbursement for cost categories such as Payroll, Overhead, Consulting, Supplies, and Travel. Eighteen out of 25 TANF contract payments tested were lacking supporting documentation for at least one cost category reported on the FM-1. We also noted 19 out of 25 CCDF contract payments were lacking supporting documentation for payroll costs reported on the FM-1. While DHS had obtained documentation supporting the contractor reimbursement request, the documentation was not adequate to fully evaluate compliance with allowability requirements defined in 2 CFR §200.403. Cause: Lack of adequate review of contractor provided documentation prior to reimbursement. Documentation submitted by subrecipients deemed insufficient to evaluate compliance with 2 CFR §200.403. Effect: Reimbursements for unallowable activities could be made by these federal programs and not be detected. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Yes RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-052a Adopt specific policy requirements regarding documentation required from subrecipients in support of reimbursement requests. 2024-052b Obtain adequate and complete documentation to support the allowability of costs claimed under contracts before authorization of payment.
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES – 93.558 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RITANF; 2401RITANF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) CCDF CLUSTER – 93.575, 93.596 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families Federal Award Fiscal Years: 2023; 2024 Federal Award Number: 2301RICCDF; 2401RICCDF Administered by: Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS) Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PAYMENTS TO SUBRECIPIENTS Invoices provided by subrecipients for both TANF and Childcare did not include all underlying documentation to support the amount requested. Background: TANF: A State may contract with charitable, religious, and private organizations to provide administrative and programmatic services and may provide beneficiaries of assistance with certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement that are redeemable with such organization (42 USC 604a(b), 42 USC 604a(k), and 45 CFR §260.34). CCDF: Funds may be used for activities that improve the quality or availability of child care services, consumer education and parental choice (42 USC 9858e). Subrecipients are required to submit periodic reports (FM-1) and supporting documentation to DHS to receive payment. Criteria: Uniform guidance, 2 CFR §200.403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, include that those costs: (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). (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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Subrecipients submit monthly invoices requesting reimbursement for cost categories such as Payroll, Overhead, Consulting, Supplies, and Travel. Eighteen out of 25 TANF contract payments tested were lacking supporting documentation for at least one cost category reported on the FM-1. We also noted 19 out of 25 CCDF contract payments were lacking supporting documentation for payroll costs reported on the FM-1. While DHS had obtained documentation supporting the contractor reimbursement request, the documentation was not adequate to fully evaluate compliance with allowability requirements defined in 2 CFR §200.403. Cause: Lack of adequate review of contractor provided documentation prior to reimbursement. Documentation submitted by subrecipients deemed insufficient to evaluate compliance with 2 CFR §200.403. Effect: Reimbursements for unallowable activities could be made by these federal programs and not be detected. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Valid Statistical Sample: Yes RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-052a Adopt specific policy requirements regarding documentation required from subrecipients in support of reimbursement requests. 2024-052b Obtain adequate and complete documentation to support the allowability of costs claimed under contracts before authorization of payment.
DISASTER GRANTS – PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS) – 97.036 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Award Fiscal Year: 2020 - 2023 Federal Award Number: 4505DRRIP00000001 Administered by: Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PROJECT WORKBOOK REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSIONS Controls over project workbook submissions for reimbursement of eligible costs were not operating effectively to ensure all claimed costs were accurately documented, leading to reimbursement of unallowable costs. Background: RIEMA, as the direct recipient agency of Public Assistance grants provided by FEMA, assists in the facilitation of cost reimbursement claims for the various departments and agencies within the State. Comprehensive workbooks are used to account for the itemized costs being claimed for reimbursement and are included as support to the reimbursement claim made through the FEMA Grants Portal. Criteria: 2 CFR §200.403(g) requires that allowable costs under federal awards be adequately documented. Condition: We selected a sample of 23 federal award drawdowns (cost reimbursement claims) during fiscal 2024, covering 96% of the population across 11 unique projects. Our testing of project workbook submissions found two discrepancies within project 694201 between amounts claimed for reimbursement in the workbooks and amounts recorded in the State accounting system and noted in supporting documentation: • One line item for a claimed invoice appeared to have keyed an additional digit onto the claimed amount in error (questioned costs – $211,751). • Another invoice appeared to transpose the incorrect column to the workbook in three out of four claimed line items (questioned costs – $117,352). Cause: Review of project workbook submissions and supporting documentation was inadequate to identify claimed costs in excess of expenditures incurred by the State. Effect: Reimbursement of costs that were not incurred by the State. Questioned Costs: $329,103 Valid Statistical Sample: Not Applicable RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-067a Improve review procedures to ensure accuracy of workbook reimbursement submissions to FEMA. 2024-067b Credit the federal grantor for unallowable costs that were reimbursed.
DISASTER GRANTS – PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED DISASTERS) – 97.036 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Award Fiscal Year: 2020 - 2023 Federal Award Number: 4505DRRIP00000001 Administered by: Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency (RIEMA) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles CONTROLS OVER PROJECT WORKBOOK REIMBURSEMENT SUBMISSIONS Controls over project workbook submissions for reimbursement of eligible costs were not operating effectively to ensure all claimed costs were accurately documented, leading to reimbursement of unallowable costs. Background: RIEMA, as the direct recipient agency of Public Assistance grants provided by FEMA, assists in the facilitation of cost reimbursement claims for the various departments and agencies within the State. Comprehensive workbooks are used to account for the itemized costs being claimed for reimbursement and are included as support to the reimbursement claim made through the FEMA Grants Portal. Criteria: 2 CFR §200.403(g) requires that allowable costs under federal awards be adequately documented. Condition: We selected a sample of 23 federal award drawdowns (cost reimbursement claims) during fiscal 2024, covering 96% of the population across 11 unique projects. Our testing of project workbook submissions found two discrepancies within project 694201 between amounts claimed for reimbursement in the workbooks and amounts recorded in the State accounting system and noted in supporting documentation: • One line item for a claimed invoice appeared to have keyed an additional digit onto the claimed amount in error (questioned costs – $211,751). • Another invoice appeared to transpose the incorrect column to the workbook in three out of four claimed line items (questioned costs – $117,352). Cause: Review of project workbook submissions and supporting documentation was inadequate to identify claimed costs in excess of expenditures incurred by the State. Effect: Reimbursement of costs that were not incurred by the State. Questioned Costs: $329,103 Valid Statistical Sample: Not Applicable RECOMMENDATIONS 2024-067a Improve review procedures to ensure accuracy of workbook reimbursement submissions to FEMA. 2024-067b Credit the federal grantor for unallowable costs that were reimbursed.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-028 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund program. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.425R COVID-19 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (CRRSA EANS) 84.425V COVID-19 American Rescue Plan – Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (ARP EANS) program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: S425D210015; S425R210012; S425U210015; S425V210012; S425W210049 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Components: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $47,322,280 Prior Year Audit Finding: No Background Beginning in March 2020, Congress set aside the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to address the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. Several rounds of funding were distributed to states under the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) program with the intent to support public and nonpublic schools. The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF grants to the Office of Financial Management, which then dispersed funds to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, to pass through to Local Education Agencies (LEAs). The U.S. Department of Education awarded ESF program funds to grantees under multiple subprograms of the ESF. An alphabetic character at the end of the 84.425 Assistance Listing Number was used to delineate the specific subprogram. Each subprogram has its own funding requirements and compliance requirements. The objective of the CRRSA EANS (84.425R) and ARP EANS (84.425V) subprograms is to provide governors with a reservation of funds to provide services or assistance to eligible nonpublic schools to address the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on nonpublic school students and teachers in the state. In fiscal year 2024, the state spent more than $600 million in ESFs federal funding. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal activities allowed and subrecipient monitoring requirements for the ESF program. After the Office distributed EANS funds to nonpublic schools, there was $47,322,281 in ESF program funds remaining that went unobligated. Those funds reverted to the Governor’s office as CRRSA-GEER funds. After the reversion of these funds, the legislature specifically directed the Office to use the resources to fund Transition to Kindergarten programs. During this process, the Office distributed funds to 149 public LEAs but did not issue subawards as required. As a result, it failed to clearly communicate these awards’ terms and conditions to the subrecipients, including the allowable uses of the funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office believed the information that was sent out through other means would cover the required elements it needed to communicate to the LEAs. The Office did not know the amount each LEA would receive as amounts were not predetermined, and the Office used an apportionment process to allocate funds to meet the legislative intent. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without issuing subawards to subrecipients to ensure proper accountability and compliance with federal requirements, the Office cannot ensure all funds were used for allowable activities and properly supported. In addition, without a subaward, the Office could not distribute funds to these subrecipients. Therefore, we are questioning the $47,322,280 that it distributed to these LEAs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Office: • Establish effective internal controls to ensure that all federal funds it grants to subrecipients are awarded through a subaward that meets federal requirements • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office’s Response We distributed these funds through the apportionment process instead of our grants system due to the nature of how the payments were calculated. Our grants system provides a grant award notification via e-mail when the grant is awarded that contains the federal elements required in CFR 200.332. While we did not provide a formal subaward that included all of these elements in one document, we provided most of them using other formal communication, such as through a Gov Delivery e-mail and the School District Accounting Manual. If we use the apportionment process to distribute funds in the future, we will include all of the required federal elements in a separate subaward. Additionally, our communication to school districts included the use of allowable activities for these funds. Therefore, we do not agree that the funds should be questioned as not being allowable or properly supported. Auditor’s Remarks The Office asserts the costs should not be questioned for not being allowable or properly supported. However, without a subaward the Office could not distribute federal funds to these subrecipients, therefore we are questioning the costs consistent with criteria established in 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance). We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Office’s corrective action during the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 34 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, Direct grant programs, section 702, Fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, states that a grantee shall use fiscal control and fund accounting procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds as required in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D—Post Federal Award Requirements. 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 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 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 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, requires that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the federal identification elements. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200.1, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for questioned costs. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 CFR Part 200.403, Uniform Guidance, establishes the factors affecting the allowability of costs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-056 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to child care providers for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster programs were allowable and properly supported. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $415,579,473 Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-058 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The Department is responsible for establishing policies to ensure payments to providers for child care services are allowable. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent more than $415 million on monthly child care subsidy payments to child care providers. There are three child care provider types: licensed centers, licensed family homes and licensed exempt providers referred to as Family, Friends and Neighbor providers. The Department uses the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) to process the payments it makes to child care providers. The system allocates payments to various funding sources based on the client’s eligibility. These funding sources include multiple federal programs, multiple CCDF federal grant awards and state funding. The Department uploads the SSPS payment data into the state’s accounting system at a summary level based on the various funding sources. There is always a need to transfer the funding sources for some payments throughout the year to manage federal and state funds properly. In prior audit periods up until fiscal year 2021, the Department prepared supporting documentation for transfers that included details of what payments it was transferring. The purpose of documenting this detail was to maintain proper support for federal expenditures. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to childcare providers were allowable and properly supported. We have reported this condition since 2005. The most recent audit finding numbers were 2023-058, 2022-041, 2021-033, 2020-038, 2019-035, 2018-034, 2017-024, 2016-021, 2015-023, 2014-023, 2013-016, 12-28, 11-23, 10-31, 9-12 and 8-13. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to child care providers for the CCDF programs were allowable and properly supported. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditure coding in SSPS inaccurate and unreliable for testing. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments to child care providers for compliance with activities allowed and cost principles. By processing these adjustments at the fund level, the Department invalidated the transaction-level documentation of the original child care expenditure in SSPS and did not identify the new allocation at the payment level. Additionally, the Department transferred some of these child care expenditures at the fund level more than once, making the underlying data increasingly unreliable with each transfer. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness that led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. The Department implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department made it impossible for our Office to audit the federal dollars it used for payments to child care providers. Because we could not test transaction-level detail, we also could not determine whether the issues we identified in prior audits had improved or worsened, including the Department’s lack of adequate internal controls and significant rate of noncompliance for payments to child care providers. The total amount of known child care payments the Department made with federal CCDF funds in the audit period was $415,579,473. The Department also partially funded these payments with an additional $208,098,727 in state dollars. Because the Department did not comply with HHS requirements to allow for the tracing of grant expenditures to a payment level, we are questioning all $415,579,473 in federal program costs it incurred during the audit period. The payments the Department partially paid with state funds are not included in the federal questioned costs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether it should repay the questioned costs identified in the audit Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 2, Definitions, includes the definition of improper payment. 45 CFR Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 45 CFR Part 75, section 403, Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs. 45 CFR Part 75, section 410, Collection of Unallowable Costs 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracking of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-057 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-060 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The CCDF consists of three distinct funding sources: Discretionary Fund, Mandatory Fund, and Matching Fund. Additionally, under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Department may transfer TANF funds to the CCDF, which are then treated as Discretionary Funds. The Department is instructed how to spend this federal money. For the Department to receive its allotted share of the Matching Fund, it must meet the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement and match the federal Matching Fund claimed with state expenditures at the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rate for the applicable fiscal year. The Department must also meet earmarking requirements for expenditures for administrative and quality activities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Department staff run monthly and quarterly expenditure reports from the accounting system to track requirements over matching, level of effort and earmarking for each open grant award. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the CCDF Cluster programs. The prior audit finding numbers were 2023-060, 2022-042, 2021-036, 2020-040 and 2019-037. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the CCDF programs. The Department’s accounting records should be used to verify it has met matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditure coding in the payment system inaccurate and unreliable for testing. Without identifying which expenditures it transferred, the Department’s monitoring is insufficient for properly managing matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. Our Office could not rely on the data supporting the Department’s expenditures or verify that the accounting records were accurate. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments for compliance with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. By processing these adjustments at the fund level, the Department invalidated the transaction-level documentation of the original child care expenditure in the payment system and did not identify the new allocation at the payment level. Additionally, the Department transferred some of these child care expenditures more than once at the fund level, making the underlying data increasingly unreliable with each transfer. This condition is also referenced in audit finding 2024-056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. In fiscal year 2021, the Department informed our Office that it had implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to determine if it had met matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Develop effective ongoing monitoring procedures Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-058 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-061 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. Each federal grant specifies a performance period during which recipients must obligate and liquidate program costs. These periods typically align with the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. Payments for costs charged before a grant’s beginning date or after the ending date are not allowed without the grantor’s prior approval. The CCDF consists of three distinct funding sources: Discretionary Fund, Mandatory Fund, and Matching Fund. Each of these funds has specific period of performance requirements established in federal regulation (45 CFR § 98.60(d)). Recipients must obligate: • Discretionary funds by the end of the succeeding fiscal year after award and must expend them by the end of the third fiscal year after award • Mandatory funds by the end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded if the state also requests matching funds. If the state does not request matching funds for the fiscal year, then the Mandatory Funds are available until liquidated. • Matching funds by the end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded and must liquidate them by the end of the succeeding fiscal year after award During the audit period, the Department also received supplemental funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Acts. These funds are treated as Discretionary Funds, however, they have their own specific obligation and liquidation timeframes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over period of performance requirements for the CCDF program. The prior finding numbers were 2023-061, 2022-043, 2021-037 and 2020-041. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the CCDF program. Our Office uses the Department’s accounting records to verify it has met the period of performance requirements. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditures coded in the payment system inaccurate and unreliable for audit testing. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments for compliance with period of performance requirements. We also referenced this condition in audit finding 2024 -056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. The Department implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to determine if it materially met the period of performance requirements. Furthermore, without adequate internal controls in place, the Department is at a higher risk of making improper payments with grant funds. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Develop written policies and procedures over federal period of performance requirements Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.60 – Availability of funds, states in part: (d) The following obligation and liquidation provisions apply to States and Territories: (1) Discretionary Fund allotments shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which funds are awarded or in the succeeding fiscal year. Unliquidated obligations as of the end of the succeeding fiscal year shall be liquidated within one year. (2) (i) Mandatory Funds for States requesting Matching Funds per § 98.55 shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and are available until expended. (ii)Mandatory Funds for States that do not request Matching Funds are available until expended. (4) Both the Federal and non-Federal share of the Matching Fund shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and liquidated no later than the end of the succeeding fiscal year. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-059 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with financial reporting requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Reporting Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-062 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The Department is required to submit a quarterly ACF-696 financial report for each open grant. These reports contain information on expenditures for three CCDF funding sources: the Mandatory Fund, the Matching Fund, and the Discretionary Fund. The Department uses CCDF expenditures recorded in the state’s accounting system to compile and support the ACF-696 report. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over financial reporting requirements for the CCDF program. The prior finding numbers were 2023-062, 2022-044 and 2021-038. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with financial reporting requirements for the CCDF program. The Department’s accounting records must provide and support the financial information reported on ACF-696 reports. During the audit period, the Department’s grant management practice was to process expenditure transfers at the fund level without identifying which expenditures it transferred. Therefore, we could not rely on the data supporting the Department’s reported ACF-696 expenditures, and could not test whether the reports were accurate and complete. We also referenced this condition in audit finding 2024-056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes using federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. In fiscal year 2021, the Department informed our Office that it had implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported them. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to audit the CCDF program expenditures reported on the ACF-696 financial report. Recommendation We recommend the Department design and implement internal controls to ensure the ACF-696 report is supported with transaction-level data that is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules. Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracking of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-056 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to child care providers for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster programs were allowable and properly supported. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $415,579,473 Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-058 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The Department is responsible for establishing policies to ensure payments to providers for child care services are allowable. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent more than $415 million on monthly child care subsidy payments to child care providers. There are three child care provider types: licensed centers, licensed family homes and licensed exempt providers referred to as Family, Friends and Neighbor providers. The Department uses the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) to process the payments it makes to child care providers. The system allocates payments to various funding sources based on the client’s eligibility. These funding sources include multiple federal programs, multiple CCDF federal grant awards and state funding. The Department uploads the SSPS payment data into the state’s accounting system at a summary level based on the various funding sources. There is always a need to transfer the funding sources for some payments throughout the year to manage federal and state funds properly. In prior audit periods up until fiscal year 2021, the Department prepared supporting documentation for transfers that included details of what payments it was transferring. The purpose of documenting this detail was to maintain proper support for federal expenditures. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to childcare providers were allowable and properly supported. We have reported this condition since 2005. The most recent audit finding numbers were 2023-058, 2022-041, 2021-033, 2020-038, 2019-035, 2018-034, 2017-024, 2016-021, 2015-023, 2014-023, 2013-016, 12-28, 11-23, 10-31, 9-12 and 8-13. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to child care providers for the CCDF programs were allowable and properly supported. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditure coding in SSPS inaccurate and unreliable for testing. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments to child care providers for compliance with activities allowed and cost principles. By processing these adjustments at the fund level, the Department invalidated the transaction-level documentation of the original child care expenditure in SSPS and did not identify the new allocation at the payment level. Additionally, the Department transferred some of these child care expenditures at the fund level more than once, making the underlying data increasingly unreliable with each transfer. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness that led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. The Department implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department made it impossible for our Office to audit the federal dollars it used for payments to child care providers. Because we could not test transaction-level detail, we also could not determine whether the issues we identified in prior audits had improved or worsened, including the Department’s lack of adequate internal controls and significant rate of noncompliance for payments to child care providers. The total amount of known child care payments the Department made with federal CCDF funds in the audit period was $415,579,473. The Department also partially funded these payments with an additional $208,098,727 in state dollars. Because the Department did not comply with HHS requirements to allow for the tracing of grant expenditures to a payment level, we are questioning all $415,579,473 in federal program costs it incurred during the audit period. The payments the Department partially paid with state funds are not included in the federal questioned costs. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Consult with the grantor to discuss whether it should repay the questioned costs identified in the audit Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 2, Definitions, includes the definition of improper payment. 45 CFR Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. 45 CFR Part 75, section 403, Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs. 45 CFR Part 75, section 410, Collection of Unallowable Costs 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracking of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-057 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-060 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The CCDF consists of three distinct funding sources: Discretionary Fund, Mandatory Fund, and Matching Fund. Additionally, under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Department may transfer TANF funds to the CCDF, which are then treated as Discretionary Funds. The Department is instructed how to spend this federal money. For the Department to receive its allotted share of the Matching Fund, it must meet the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement and match the federal Matching Fund claimed with state expenditures at the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage rate for the applicable fiscal year. The Department must also meet earmarking requirements for expenditures for administrative and quality activities. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Department staff run monthly and quarterly expenditure reports from the accounting system to track requirements over matching, level of effort and earmarking for each open grant award. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the CCDF Cluster programs. The prior audit finding numbers were 2023-060, 2022-042, 2021-036, 2020-040 and 2019-037. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements for the CCDF programs. The Department’s accounting records should be used to verify it has met matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditure coding in the payment system inaccurate and unreliable for testing. Without identifying which expenditures it transferred, the Department’s monitoring is insufficient for properly managing matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. Our Office could not rely on the data supporting the Department’s expenditures or verify that the accounting records were accurate. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments for compliance with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. By processing these adjustments at the fund level, the Department invalidated the transaction-level documentation of the original child care expenditure in the payment system and did not identify the new allocation at the payment level. Additionally, the Department transferred some of these child care expenditures more than once at the fund level, making the underlying data increasingly unreliable with each transfer. This condition is also referenced in audit finding 2024-056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. In fiscal year 2021, the Department informed our Office that it had implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to determine if it had met matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Develop effective ongoing monitoring procedures Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-058 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-061 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. Each federal grant specifies a performance period during which recipients must obligate and liquidate program costs. These periods typically align with the federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. Payments for costs charged before a grant’s beginning date or after the ending date are not allowed without the grantor’s prior approval. The CCDF consists of three distinct funding sources: Discretionary Fund, Mandatory Fund, and Matching Fund. Each of these funds has specific period of performance requirements established in federal regulation (45 CFR § 98.60(d)). Recipients must obligate: • Discretionary funds by the end of the succeeding fiscal year after award and must expend them by the end of the third fiscal year after award • Mandatory funds by the end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded if the state also requests matching funds. If the state does not request matching funds for the fiscal year, then the Mandatory Funds are available until liquidated. • Matching funds by the end of the fiscal year in which they are awarded and must liquidate them by the end of the succeeding fiscal year after award During the audit period, the Department also received supplemental funds under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Acts. These funds are treated as Discretionary Funds, however, they have their own specific obligation and liquidation timeframes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCDF at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over period of performance requirements for the CCDF program. The prior finding numbers were 2023-061, 2022-043, 2021-037 and 2020-041. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the CCDF program. Our Office uses the Department’s accounting records to verify it has met the period of performance requirements. In fiscal year 2021, management informed us that the Department changed its grant management practices to process expenditure transfers at the grant level. This new process made the original expenditures coded in the payment system inaccurate and unreliable for audit testing. As a result, we could not trace the federal funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish whether the Department spent CCDF funds in accordance with federal and state regulations. Further, this meant we could not test the Department’s payments for compliance with period of performance requirements. We also referenced this condition in audit finding 2024 -056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes with federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. The Department implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported the adjustments. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to determine if it materially met the period of performance requirements. Furthermore, without adequate internal controls in place, the Department is at a higher risk of making improper payments with grant funds. Recommendations We recommend the Department: • Design and implement internal controls to ensure transaction-level data is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules • Develop written policies and procedures over federal period of performance requirements Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.60 – Availability of funds, states in part: (d) The following obligation and liquidation provisions apply to States and Territories: (1) Discretionary Fund allotments shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which funds are awarded or in the succeeding fiscal year. Unliquidated obligations as of the end of the succeeding fiscal year shall be liquidated within one year. (2) (i) Mandatory Funds for States requesting Matching Funds per § 98.55 shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and are available until expended. (ii)Mandatory Funds for States that do not request Matching Funds are available until expended. (4) Both the Federal and non-Federal share of the Matching Fund shall be obligated in the fiscal year in which the funds are granted and liquidated no later than the end of the succeeding fiscal year. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.
2024-059 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with financial reporting requirements for the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 93.575 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 COVID-19 Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award/Contract Number: 2103WACCDF; 2103WACCDD; 2303WACCDF; 2303WACCDD; 2403WACCDM; 2403WACCDD; 2103WACDC6; 2103WACSC6; 2103WACCC5; 2024WACCDD Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Reporting Known Questioned Cost Amount: None Prior Year Audit Finding: Yes, Finding 2023-062 Background The Department of Children, Youth, and Families administers the federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grants to help eligible working families pay for child care and fund improvements to child care quality. In fiscal year 2024, the Department spent about $483.5 million in federal funding. The Department is required to submit a quarterly ACF-696 financial report for each open grant. These reports contain information on expenditures for three CCDF funding sources: the Mandatory Fund, the Matching Fund, and the Discretionary Fund. The Department uses CCDF expenditures recorded in the state’s accounting system to compile and support the ACF-696 report. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the CCF program at the federal level, requires recipients to have accounting procedures that are sufficient for tracing grants to a level of expenditure adequate to show that they have used them in accordance with program requirements. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. In prior audits, we reported the Department did not have adequate internal controls over financial reporting requirements for the CCDF program. The prior finding numbers were 2023-062, 2022-044 and 2021-038. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with financial reporting requirements for the CCDF program. The Department’s accounting records must provide and support the financial information reported on ACF-696 reports. During the audit period, the Department’s grant management practice was to process expenditure transfers at the fund level without identifying which expenditures it transferred. Therefore, we could not rely on the data supporting the Department’s reported ACF-696 expenditures, and could not test whether the reports were accurate and complete. We also referenced this condition in audit finding 2024-056. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. Cause of Condition The Department is required to maintain sufficient documentation for each payment it makes using federal dollars. The Department’s accounting practices prevent it from meeting this requirement. In fiscal year 2021, the Department informed our Office that it had implemented what management referred to as fund-level accounting. This consisted of making significant accounting adjustments between funding sources in its general ledger without identifying the underlying transactions in the payment system that supported them. This affected all populations of child care expenditures for every month of the fiscal year. HHS officials informed the Department that these accounting practices do not comply with federal law, but management said they believe they are compliant. Effect of Condition By not complying with federal law requirements to maintain adequate supporting documentation for expenditures, the Department created a condition that made it impossible for our Office to audit the CCDF program expenditures reported on the ACF-696 financial report. Recommendation We recommend the Department design and implement internal controls to ensure the ACF-696 report is supported with transaction-level data that is sufficient to comply with federal law and state rules. Department’s Response The Department has managed the CCDF program since 2019, prior to that it was managed by the Department of Social and Health Services and the Department of Early Learning. The Department implemented grant-level management of all federal funds, including the CCDF grant. The Department allocated the CCDF grants to eligible clients and allowable activities in compliance with 45 CFR 98.67. This process consists of making grant level adjustments between allowable grant sources to properly spend grant dollars within the allowable period of performance and ensure level of effort and matching requirements. The Department’s grant adjustments were processed based on eligible clients and allowable activities and did not include child-level data as required by SAO. The Department received a management decision letter dated October 3, 2023, from HHS for finding 2021-033 (2020-038) which states: “the ACF noted that the auditor raised concern about the Department’s accounting procedures and efforts made to trace expenditures at the transaction-level. As the basis for the finding, the auditor used CFRs (200.53, 200.303, 200.403, 200.410) that do not apply to CCDF. Federal regulations allow Lead Agencies to expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own procedures.” In addition, ACF did not sustain the disallowance of questioned costs and stated: “Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” The ACF recommended, “that the Department work with the auditors to determine an appropriate methodology that can be tested to ensure child care payments comply with Federal regulations.” The Department is committed to collaborating with SAO to determine an appropriate methodology that identifies a sampling unit that can be used to accurately test compliance. The SAO maintained that the program is not auditable without child-level data. During the audit period, the Department did not have the staff and resources to develop and maintain the business process redesign, as well as the information technology initiatives necessary to meet the level of assurance as identified by SAO. In response to the auditor’s recommendations, the Department submitted a budget request for the 2024 supplemental budget. The enacted 2024 supplemental budget included funding to implement the Department’s budget request for funding beginning in state fiscal year 2025 and specified: “Funding in this subsection must be expended with internal controls that provide child-level detail for all transactions, beginning July 1, 2024” Upon receiving funding, the Department is working with a developer to assist with building out the required databases between the Social Service Payment System (SSPS) and the Agency Financial Reporting System (AFRS) to allow transfers between fundings sources to include the child-level data related to the expenditures. The Department looks forward to working with SAO to resolve the child-level data concerns and move forward with auditing the CCDF grant programs. Auditor’s Remarks The level of documentation needed to support grant expenditures is not established by our Office, but in title 45 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations and the state’s grant award. During the February 2022 meeting with HHS that the Department referenced in its response, the grantor stated the specific federal law the Department’s accounting procedures were noncompliant with was 45 CFR 98.67. We agree with the HHS management decision that our references to 2 CFR 200.53, 200.303, 200.403 and 200.410 in the 2021 finding were not correct. However, HHS adopted these same requirements in 45 CFR 75.2, 75.303, 75.403 and 75.410, respectfully. These requirements were all in place during the audit period. The proper references were included in the prior year finding and are included in this finding as well. Without adequate transactional level payment data, our Office is unable to perform tests to verify the Department met these requirements. In addition, we also are unable to verify whether the Department complied with matching, level of effort and earmarking requirements, or that required financial information reported to the federal government was accurate. These matters are referenced in separate findings in our report. In its response, the Department references a management decision letter issued October 3, 2023. The finding was partially sustained because the questioned costs identified in the audit would not be disallowed. The management decision states: “The ACF partially sustains the finding and recommendation. The ACF agrees with the auditor that the Department should strengthen internal controls to ensure payments to child care providers are allowable and properly supported.” “The ACF does not sustain a disallowance for the questioned costs in the amount of $271,353,409 representing the entire amount of the CCDF grant award. Although the Department’s internal controls were lacking, the ACF has not identified any funds that were expended on ineligible activities.” We are not aware of what procedures ACF performed to conclude expenditures reported by the Department for fiscal year 2024 were spent only for allowable activities, were for allowable costs and met federal cost principles. We questioned all expenditures because, in our judgment, they were unauditable. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the Department’s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75, section 303, Internal Controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. Title 45 CFR Part 75, section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 45 CFR, Section 98.67 – Fiscal requirements, states: (a) Lead Agencies shall expend and account for CCDF funds in accordance with their own laws and procedures for expending and accounting for their own funds. (b) Unless otherwise specified in this part, contracts that entail the expenditure of CCDF funds shall comply with the laws and procedures generally applicable to expenditures by the contracting agency of its own funds. (c) Fiscal control and accounting procedures shall be sufficient to permit: (1) Preparation of reports required by the Secretary under this subpart and under subpart H; and (2) The tracking of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of the provisions of this part. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11.