2024-004 Compliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over compliance with Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Cost/Cost Principles U.S. Department of Education Passed through NYS Department of Education Program Name: Education Stabilization Fund AL#: 84.425U Condition: In accordance with C.R. 170.2 of the Commissioner’s Regulations, the District requires Purchase Orders to be established to encumber the approved budget items for each expenditure code. The complete bill packet including the Purchase Order, receiving slip, and invoice is submitted for authorization of payment. For the ARP Summer Enrichment Grant, Purchase Orders were created after the dates of service. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the District is required to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards in accordance with 2CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs states that costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards:(a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles.(b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items.(c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost.(e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part.(f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Context: 1 item representing the total population was selected for testing. A Purchase Order was initiated on 1/25/24 for an invoice dated 8/9/23 Questioned Costs are $19,960. Cause: The District did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure that Purchase Orders are created in accordance C.R. 170.2 of the Commissioner’s Regulations. When the invoices were received, a Purchase Order was required to be able to pay the vendor. Effect: The District is not in compliance with the requirements of the Education Stabilization Fund program with respect to Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs. Identification of a Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit, 2023-007 Recommendation: We recommend that the District’s written procedures addressing internal controls with respect to program requirements be followed to ensure the District is in compliance at all times. View of Responsible Officials: Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District’s management concurs with this finding. The District is in the process of implementing procedures to ensure that compliance is maintained in the future. Please refer to the corrective action plan .
Assistance Listing: 84.351 C.A.R.E. Condition: Cleveland Play House does not have adequate documentation to support all charges to the federal program. Of the 40 payroll charges tested, 2 did not have adequate documentation. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.430(i) states that charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. 2 CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under Federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Cause: Due to significant organizational turnover in fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024, certain individuals did not have expense reimbursements requested based on actual hours worked on grant related activities. Although management maintained authorized time cards during each pay period, expense reimbursements were requested in a greater amount than hours actually worked on the grant. Effect: Cleveland Play House did not have adequate documentation to support all costs charged to the federal program. In addition, an ineffective financial management system could lead to incorrect identification of costs charged to a federal program and an inability to substantiate that doublecharging did not occur. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding, refer to 2022-002 and 2023-002. Questioned costs: Payroll: $3,846 Recommendation: We continue to recommend that Cleveland Play House develop a policy and procedure to ensure that all hours submitted for federal reimbursement are supported with timesheets that are approved by a supervisor. Views of responsible officials: Management concurs with this recommendation. See also corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-007 - Material Weakness: Allowable Costs and Activities – Compliance and Control Finding ALN 84.116 – Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Numbers: P116Z230322 and P116Z220015 Pass-Through Entity: None Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR section 200.403 requires adequate documentation for allowable activities and costs and 2 CFR section 200.403(e) requires charges to the grant to be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Uniform Guidance requires that controls over compliance be properly designed, in place and operating effectively to ensure compliance with the requirements of the federal programs. Condition: We noted through procedures performed that costs were not supported by adequate documentation and costs were not charged to the grant in accordance with GAAP. Internal controls designed for this federal program did not detect these errors. Cause: Controls over compliance put in place by management were not operating effectively as it relates to these compliance requirements. Effect: The possibility exists that noncompliance with federal requirements could go undetected without proper controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: $34,890 of known questioned costs were identified in our testing sample Likely questioned costs exceed $25,000. Context: In a sample of 40 individual costs charged to the grant, the following occurred: • A charge of $3,000 was recorded against the grant but was supported by documentation totaling only $621. • A charge of $32,511 was recorded as an expense to the grant, although the amount related to prepaid costs for future services or benefits that had not yet been incurred. • In addition, 31 individual costs in the sample lacked appropriate review and approval for the charges applied to the grant. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management review the internal controls over allowable costs and activities to ensure the control is designed to ensure the correct amount of salaries are charged to the grant based on the approved time and effort certifications. Views Of Responsible Officials: All expenses must be supported by documentation and comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) standards. A pre-review checklist will be required for all charges against FIPSE grants. Prepaid items must be recorded in the prepaid ledger and amortized appropriately. Documentation will be retained in alignment with the University Record Retention policy. Management will implement a formal review and approval process to ensure that all allowable costs are verified for compliance with applicable regulations and approved by designated personnel prior to reimbursement or payment.
Finding 2024-007 - Material Weakness: Allowable Costs and Activities – Compliance and Control Finding ALN 84.116 – Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Numbers: P116Z230322 and P116Z220015 Pass-Through Entity: None Criteria Or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR section 200.403 requires adequate documentation for allowable activities and costs and 2 CFR section 200.403(e) requires charges to the grant to be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Uniform Guidance requires that controls over compliance be properly designed, in place and operating effectively to ensure compliance with the requirements of the federal programs. Condition: We noted through procedures performed that costs were not supported by adequate documentation and costs were not charged to the grant in accordance with GAAP. Internal controls designed for this federal program did not detect these errors. Cause: Controls over compliance put in place by management were not operating effectively as it relates to these compliance requirements. Effect: The possibility exists that noncompliance with federal requirements could go undetected without proper controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: $34,890 of known questioned costs were identified in our testing sample Likely questioned costs exceed $25,000. Context: In a sample of 40 individual costs charged to the grant, the following occurred: • A charge of $3,000 was recorded against the grant but was supported by documentation totaling only $621. • A charge of $32,511 was recorded as an expense to the grant, although the amount related to prepaid costs for future services or benefits that had not yet been incurred. • In addition, 31 individual costs in the sample lacked appropriate review and approval for the charges applied to the grant. Identification As A Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management review the internal controls over allowable costs and activities to ensure the control is designed to ensure the correct amount of salaries are charged to the grant based on the approved time and effort certifications. Views Of Responsible Officials: All expenses must be supported by documentation and comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) standards. A pre-review checklist will be required for all charges against FIPSE grants. Prepaid items must be recorded in the prepaid ledger and amortized appropriately. Documentation will be retained in alignment with the University Record Retention policy. Management will implement a formal review and approval process to ensure that all allowable costs are verified for compliance with applicable regulations and approved by designated personnel prior to reimbursement or payment.
Finding No. 2024-034 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) Impact: Significant Deficiency, Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 12.401 National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance Projects (NGMOMP) Federal Award Number: W91ZRU-20-2-1001, W91ZRU-21-2-1001, W91ZRU-22-2-1001, W91ZRU-23-2-1001, W91ZRU-24-2-1001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Matching, Level of Effort, Earmarking Condition: The State’s accounting system was not updated for changes to the FFY 24 federally certified Facilities Inventory and Support Plan (FISP), which is used to allocate costs to the NGMOMP program. Context: The FISP is USDOD’s federal registry of real property inventory and includes detailed information of all federal/state owned and state operated Army National Guard (ARNG) facilities within the state. All ARNG facilities are owned by, leased for, or licensed to the State. As a result, the State operates and maintains all ARNG facilities. The FISP identifies the level of federal reimbursement authorized for each real property facility through support codes. National Guard Regulations (NGR) Pamphlet 420-10, Chapter 7, provides the support codes with the corresponding federal funding level percentage (i.e. 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, or no support provided). The FISP is annually updated and certified to identify new facilities, changes in funding support, or facilities no longer supported by USDOD. The certified FISP is provided to DMVA management for tracking of ARNG facilities and determining the appropriate funding levels. DMVA management tracks the facilities using location codes in the State’s accounting system. The appropriate federal and State funding level is assigned to each location code. In FY 24 there were expenditures for 139 facility location codes. The audit reviewed all 139 facilities and found 11 (eight percent) had expenditures allocated at a higher federal rate than authorized in the FISP and one of the 11 locations was not listed on the FISP. Cause: DMVA’s procedures were insufficient to ensure the FISP was reviewed annually to identify changes in the facility support codes that require coding changes in the State’s accounting system. DMVA management also applied a higher reimbursement rate based on misinterpretation of multi-use facilities. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that the State is managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires costs to be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the federal award, and to conform to any limitations or exclusions in the federal awards as to types or amount of cost items. NGR 5-1 Section 5-4, dated May 28, 2010, states that when there is an identified cost share in an agreement, the grantor shall reimburse the grantee only for the grantor’s percentage share of the total allowable costs. NGR 420-10, Policy and Guidance for ARNG Facilities Program, dated September 2019, states the rate of reimbursement to the State for all authorized charges shall be based on the FISP support codes for the facility generating the expenditure. Effect: Failing to update the State’s accounting system resulted in DMVA management overcharging expenditures to the federal program. Noncompliance with federal regulations may result in the federal awarding agency imposing additional conditions or taking corrective action, including withholding/terminating funding. Questioned Costs: AL 12.401: $88,984 Recommendation: DMVA’s Division of Administrative Services (DAS) director and the Army Guard Facilities Maintenance director should strengthen procedures to ensure the State’s accounting system is updated annually based on revisions to the certified FISP and ensure the proper codes are used for multi-use facilities. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 2024-036 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) Impact: Significant Deficiency, Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) – COVID-19 Federal Award Number: 4413DRAKP00000001, 4533DRAKP00000001, 4585DRAKP00000001, 4646DRAKP00000001, 4667DRAKP00000001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: A review of 25 FY 24 Disaster Grants payments found that 14 payments (56 percent) lacked required supporting documentation. Specifically, six payments lacked pay policy and/or fringe benefit calculations and eight payments lacked procurement contracts that included all federal requirements. Additionally, two of the eight payments lacked a complete or signed contract on file. Context: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimburses force account labor based on actual hourly rates plus the cost of the employee’s actual fringe benefits. The applicant is required to submit the following documentation to support labor costs claimed: summary of actual costs for completed work, individual information (such as name, job title, type of employee, days and hours worked, pay rate and fringe benefit rate, and a description of work performed), fringe benefit calculation, and pay policy. FEMA determines the eligibility of overtime, premium pay, and compensatory time costs based on the applicant’s pre-disaster written pay policy. Six of the 25 transactions included force account labor that was not supported by a pay policy or benefit calculation. FEMA provides public assistance funding for contract costs based on the terms of the contract if the applicant meets federal procurement and contracting requirements. The applicant must include required provisions detailed in Title 2 CFR 200.327 in all contracts awarded and maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform according to the conditions and specifications of the contract. FEMA reimburses funding for contract costs based on the terms of the contract if the applicant meets federal procurement and contract requirements. Eight of the 25 transactions included contractor payments and, based on review of the contract, not all federally required provisions were included. Two of the eight were not supported by a signed contract. According to DMVA management, contractors were utilized to provide project management of the federal disasters due to an increased workload and a lack of available DMVA staff. Contractors were tasked with gathering the required documents to ensure projects were administered in accordance with FEMA requirements. Cause: Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) lacked written procedures for monitoring contractors. Also, due to staff turnover and an increase in workload, DHSEM management did not adequately monitor contractor’s work. Specifically, to ensure the contractor verified the contracts awarded by subrecipients included federal requirements, final signed contracts were provided to the state, and required documentation was received for the reimbursement of subrecipient force account labor costs. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires costs to be adequately documented. FEMA’s guidance for administering the program is detailed in the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), 2018, which requires labor costs to be supported by specific documentation: summary of actual costs for completed work; for each individual: name, job title and function, type of employee, days and hours worked, pay rates and fringe benefit rate, and description of work performed; fringe benefit calculations; and pay policy. The PAPPG also requires contracts to include the required provisions in Title 2 CFR 200.327 and Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation Class Deviation 15-01 clauses in all contracts awarded. Title 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that the State is managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Effect: Lack of fringe benefit calculations and pay policy may result in FEMA limiting public assistance funding to the applicant non-discretionary, uniformly applied pay rates. Inadequate documentation may result in unallowable costs. Noncompliance with federal regulations may result in the federal awarding agency imposing additional conditions or taking corrective action, including additional reporting requirements or withholding/terminating funding. Questioned Costs: AL - 97.036: $96,758 AL - 97.036 COVID-19: $2,159 Recommendation: DHSEM’s director should develop written procedures for adequately monitoring DMVA contractors to ensure all federally required documentation is obtained to support reimbursements to subrecipients. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 2024-036 Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) Impact: Significant Deficiency, Noncompliance AL Number and Title: 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) 97.036 Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) – COVID-19 Federal Award Number: 4413DRAKP00000001, 4533DRAKP00000001, 4585DRAKP00000001, 4646DRAKP00000001, 4667DRAKP00000001 Applicable Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: A review of 25 FY 24 Disaster Grants payments found that 14 payments (56 percent) lacked required supporting documentation. Specifically, six payments lacked pay policy and/or fringe benefit calculations and eight payments lacked procurement contracts that included all federal requirements. Additionally, two of the eight payments lacked a complete or signed contract on file. Context: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimburses force account labor based on actual hourly rates plus the cost of the employee’s actual fringe benefits. The applicant is required to submit the following documentation to support labor costs claimed: summary of actual costs for completed work, individual information (such as name, job title, type of employee, days and hours worked, pay rate and fringe benefit rate, and a description of work performed), fringe benefit calculation, and pay policy. FEMA determines the eligibility of overtime, premium pay, and compensatory time costs based on the applicant’s pre-disaster written pay policy. Six of the 25 transactions included force account labor that was not supported by a pay policy or benefit calculation. FEMA provides public assistance funding for contract costs based on the terms of the contract if the applicant meets federal procurement and contracting requirements. The applicant must include required provisions detailed in Title 2 CFR 200.327 in all contracts awarded and maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform according to the conditions and specifications of the contract. FEMA reimburses funding for contract costs based on the terms of the contract if the applicant meets federal procurement and contract requirements. Eight of the 25 transactions included contractor payments and, based on review of the contract, not all federally required provisions were included. Two of the eight were not supported by a signed contract. According to DMVA management, contractors were utilized to provide project management of the federal disasters due to an increased workload and a lack of available DMVA staff. Contractors were tasked with gathering the required documents to ensure projects were administered in accordance with FEMA requirements. Cause: Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHSEM) lacked written procedures for monitoring contractors. Also, due to staff turnover and an increase in workload, DHSEM management did not adequately monitor contractor’s work. Specifically, to ensure the contractor verified the contracts awarded by subrecipients included federal requirements, final signed contracts were provided to the state, and required documentation was received for the reimbursement of subrecipient force account labor costs. Criteria: Title 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires costs to be adequately documented. FEMA’s guidance for administering the program is detailed in the Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), 2018, which requires labor costs to be supported by specific documentation: summary of actual costs for completed work; for each individual: name, job title and function, type of employee, days and hours worked, pay rates and fringe benefit rate, and description of work performed; fringe benefit calculations; and pay policy. The PAPPG also requires contracts to include the required provisions in Title 2 CFR 200.327 and Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation Class Deviation 15-01 clauses in all contracts awarded. Title 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires the State to establish and maintain effective internal controls over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that the State is managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Effect: Lack of fringe benefit calculations and pay policy may result in FEMA limiting public assistance funding to the applicant non-discretionary, uniformly applied pay rates. Inadequate documentation may result in unallowable costs. Noncompliance with federal regulations may result in the federal awarding agency imposing additional conditions or taking corrective action, including additional reporting requirements or withholding/terminating funding. Questioned Costs: AL - 97.036: $96,758 AL - 97.036 COVID-19: $2,159 Recommendation: DHSEM’s director should develop written procedures for adequately monitoring DMVA contractors to ensure all federally required documentation is obtained to support reimbursements to subrecipients. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 225GA324N1099 (Year: 2024), 245GA324N1199 (Year 2024) Questioned Costs: $77,285 Repeat of Prior Year Finding: FA 2023-001 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential child care institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $2,251,765 were expended and reported on the Berrien County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 60 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The following deficiencies were noted: • For three expenditures, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. • For seven expenditures, there was no verification of receipt of goods documented in the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed 40 of these same expenditures and a sample of 20 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package for five additional expenditures. • For 19 expenditures paid to four different vendors, documentation could not be provided to support the entity’s verification that the vendors were not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transactions. • One vendor contract expired mid-year and no renewal or extension was initiated. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $77,285 were identified for procurement transactions that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures and were incurred under an expired contract for which no renewal or extension was initiated. These known questioned costs related to all expenditures occurring after contract expiration, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: When discussing the issues noted with management, they said the program director was new and was unaware of the compliance requirements. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed, and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 225GA324N1099 (Year: 2024), 245GA324N1199 (Year 2024) Questioned Costs: $77,285 Repeat of Prior Year Finding: FA 2023-001 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential child care institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $2,251,765 were expended and reported on the Berrien County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 60 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The following deficiencies were noted: • For three expenditures, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. • For seven expenditures, there was no verification of receipt of goods documented in the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed 40 of these same expenditures and a sample of 20 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package for five additional expenditures. • For 19 expenditures paid to four different vendors, documentation could not be provided to support the entity’s verification that the vendors were not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transactions. • One vendor contract expired mid-year and no renewal or extension was initiated. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $77,285 were identified for procurement transactions that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures and were incurred under an expired contract for which no renewal or extension was initiated. These known questioned costs related to all expenditures occurring after contract expiration, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: When discussing the issues noted with management, they said the program director was new and was unaware of the compliance requirements. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed, and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Program Name: Supportive Services for Veteran Families Assistance Listing Number: 64.033 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 12-NC-050 Award Period: September 30, 2022 through September 30, 2024 - Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. Condition: During testing of the underlying expenditure details, we noted that the payroll reports provided by the Corporation did not agree with the underlying grant expenditure records. Specifically, the underlying payroll reports were less than what was charged to the grant. Questioned costs: $6,004 Context: During our testing we reviewed the underlying expenditure details. We compared the payroll reports provided by the Corporation to the underlying grant expenditure records. Our review identified a discrepancy where the payroll detail was $6,004 less than the amount charged to the grant. This discrepancy indicates a potential issue with internal controls over the reconciliation process for payroll costs. Cause: The discrepancy was due to inadequate internal controls over the reconciliation of payroll reports to the grant expenditures. The client did not have a process in place to ensure that payroll costs charged to the grant were supported by detailed payroll records. Effect: As a result, there is a risk that unallowable costs were charged to the grant, which could lead to noncompliance with federal requirements and potential disallowance of costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Corporation implement internal controls over the reconciliation of payroll reports to grant expenditures. This should include regular reconciliations and reviews to ensure that all payroll costs charged to the grant are adequately supported by detailed payroll records. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the above finding. A payroll salary reconciliation report will be completed after each payroll issued and will be verified against the grant reports, accounting system class coding and employee-specific payroll file(s). Printed reports will be maintained on file in the Finance Department for historical reference.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Program Name: Supportive Services for Veteran Families Assistance Listing Number: 64.033 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 12-NC-050 Award Period: September 30, 2022 through September 30, 2024 - Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3), non-Federal entities must maintain records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally-funded activities. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.403(g) requires that costs must be adequately documented to be allowable under Federal awards. Condition: During testing of allowable costs, we identified cash disbursements that lacked adequate supporting documentation. Specifically, these disbursements were made without proof of payment and corresponding invoice support. Questioned costs: $16,576 Context: As part of our audit procedures, we selected a sample of cash disbursements to ensure compliance with federal regulations. The sample included transactions from various periods within the award year. During the review, it was noted that disbursements totaling $15,754 did not have the required supporting documentation, such as proof of payment and corresponding invoices. This finding indicates potential systemic issues within the accounts payable process that could affect the overall compliance with federal awards. Cause: The lack of supporting documentation appears to be due to weaknesses in the internal controls over the accounts payable process. The Corporation did not have a process in place to ensure that expenditures charged to the grant were supported by proof of payment and corresponding invoice support. Effect: There is a risk that unallowable costs were charged to the grant, which could lead to noncompliance with federal requirements and potential disallowance of costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the Corporation strengthen its internal controls over cash disbursements. This should include retention of payments supported by valid invoices and proof of payment documentation as well as periodic internal audits to ensure compliance with the documentation requirements. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the above finding. All purchase-related supporting documentation will be transitioned to paper files to eliminate confusion created by the electronic record-keeping system, and to ensure that all staff requiring access to such documentation can immediately and easily retrieve them. Records will be maintained in the Finance Department office for seven years.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(h), costs must be incurred during the approved budget period or period of performance, unless specifically authorized otherwise by the federal awarding agency. Charging costs incurred outside the period of performance is unallowable and does not comply with federal cost principles. Condition: During our testing of payroll expenditures charged to the federal award, it was determined that Solvista Health claimed reimbursement for payroll costs incurred outside the approved period of performance. Specifically, for one grant, payroll expenditures were claimed for time worked between June 26, 2023 and June 30, 2023, although the awards period of performance began on July 1, 2023. Additionally, for another grant tested, payroll expenditures were claimed for time worked between October 30, 2023 and October 31, 2023, despite the award’s period of performance not beginning until November 1, 2023. Context: Actual payroll expenditures submitted included payroll expenditures that were outside the period of performance, which overstated the payroll expenditures applied to the grant. Questioned Costs: $7,522 consisting of payroll expenditures submitted for reimbursement for expenditures incurred outside of the approved period of performance. Cause: Solvista Health did not have adequate controls to ensure that expenditures charged to the federal program were incurred within the period of performance. Effect: Solvista Health claimed reimbursement for payroll costs incurred outside of the approved period of performance, resulting in unallowable costs being charged to this award. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend Solvista Health design and implement controls to ensure that expenditures submitted for reimbursement under federal awards are properly reviewed for compliance with regard to the period of performance requirements.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(h), costs must be incurred during the approved budget period or period of performance, unless specifically authorized otherwise by the federal awarding agency. Charging costs incurred outside the period of performance is unallowable and does not comply with federal cost principles. Condition: During our testing of payroll expenditures charged to the federal award, it was determined that Solvista Health claimed reimbursement for payroll costs incurred outside the approved period of performance. Specifically, for one grant, payroll expenditures were claimed for time worked between June 26, 2023 and June 30, 2023, although the awards period of performance began on July 1, 2023. Additionally, for another grant tested, payroll expenditures were claimed for time worked between October 30, 2023 and October 31, 2023, despite the award’s period of performance not beginning until November 1, 2023. Context: Actual payroll expenditures submitted included payroll expenditures that were outside the period of performance, which overstated the payroll expenditures applied to the grant. Questioned Costs: $7,522 consisting of payroll expenditures submitted for reimbursement for expenditures incurred outside of the approved period of performance. Cause: Solvista Health did not have adequate controls to ensure that expenditures charged to the federal program were incurred within the period of performance. Effect: Solvista Health claimed reimbursement for payroll costs incurred outside of the approved period of performance, resulting in unallowable costs being charged to this award. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend Solvista Health design and implement controls to ensure that expenditures submitted for reimbursement under federal awards are properly reviewed for compliance with regard to the period of performance requirements.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(a), costs charged to a federal award must be allowable under the provisions of the cost principles, the terms and conditions of the award, and the approved budget. Additionally, earmarking requirements in the grant agreement and associated budget restrict specific categories of expenditures, including a cap on allowable software costs. Condition: During our testing of expenditures claimed for reimbursement, we noted that Solvista Health incurred and claimed software-related costs in excess of the grant agreement, which explicitly limits allowable software expenditures. Context: The software expenditures submitted exceeded the software costs allowed per the grant agreement. Questioned Costs: $2,814 consisting of exceeded software expenditures submitted for reimbursement. Cause: Solvista Health did not have adequately designed and implemented internal controls related to monitoring of compliance with earmarking requirements specific to software expenditures under the terms of the grant. Effect: Solvista Health exceeded the allowable software cost limit established by the grant. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Solvista Health design and implement grant monitoring internal controls to ensure expenditures comply with all earmarking limitations specified in grant agreements and approved budgets. In particular, Solvista Health should implement procedures to track expenditures by budget category and verify compliance prior to submitting reimbursement requests.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to the program, and adequately documented. Only allowable costs as defined by the terms and conditions of the award and the Uniform Guidance may be charged to the grant. Condition: During our testing of expenditures submitted by Solvista Health for reimbursement, we identified instances where costs were charged to the grant that were not allowable under the Uniform Guidance or the terms of the grant agreement. Specifically, unallowable employee meals were included in travel reimbursement costs. Context: Employees’ meal expenditures were submitted as allowable costs and as travel costs; however employee meals are not an allowable expenditure per the grant agreement. Questioned Costs: $842 consisting of unallowable meal expenditures. Cause: Solvista Health did not have sufficient internal controls implemented to identify unallowed expenditures, which were submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Failure to submit unallowable expenditures for reimbursement may result in noncompliance with the federal awarding agency and may result in the repayment of any unallowable expenditures to the grantor. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Solvista Health implement internal controls to ensure review and approval of grant-related expenditures. Additionally, we recommend regular training of staff on allowable cost principles under Uniform Guidance.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to the program, and adequately documented. Only allowable costs as defined by the terms and conditions of the award and the Uniform Guidance may be charged to the grant. Condition: During our testing of expenditures submitted by Solvista Health for reimbursement, we identified instances where costs were charged to the grant that were not allowable under the Uniform Guidance or the terms of the grant agreement. Specifically, unallowable employee meals were included in travel reimbursement costs. Context: Employees’ meal expenditures were submitted as allowable costs and as travel costs; however employee meals are not an allowable expenditure per the grant agreement. Questioned Costs: $842 consisting of unallowable meal expenditures. Cause: Solvista Health did not have sufficient internal controls implemented to identify unallowed expenditures, which were submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Failure to submit unallowable expenditures for reimbursement may result in noncompliance with the federal awarding agency and may result in the repayment of any unallowable expenditures to the grantor. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Solvista Health implement internal controls to ensure review and approval of grant-related expenditures. Additionally, we recommend regular training of staff on allowable cost principles under Uniform Guidance.
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse ALN No. 93.959 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Opioid STR ALN No. 93.788 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria or Specific Requirement – Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Cost Principles – 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, and Period of Performance – 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h) Condition – A sample of 80 expenditures were selected from each of the following populations: • ALN No. 93.959 – 1,152 items totaling $1,077,416 • ALN No. 93.788 – 1,222 items totaling $2,537,080 The samples were not, and are not intended to be, statistically valid. Of the 80 expenditures tested from each grant program, the following were determined to lack appropriate supporting documentation to support being charged to grant program: • ALN No. 93.959 - 41 items totaling $25,810, including projected errors over the total population totaling $191,145 • ALN No. 93.788 - 10 items totaling $72,347, including projected errors over the total population totaling $207,012 The Organization did not have adequate supporting documentation demonstrating actual time and effort reporting and lacked evidence of supporting invoices. Cause – The Organization charged budgeted percentages to the grant programs without a system in place to monitor and track that actual time and effort was consistent with budgeted percentages. In addition, the Organization charged expenditures to the grant programs without evidence of supporting invoices. Effect or potential effect – Costs charged to the grant programs could have varied from actual time and effort. In addition, costs charged to the grant could not be supported by actual invoices. Questioned costs – • ALN No. 93.959 - $25,810 • ALN No. 93.788 - $72,347 Context – The Organization did not have a reasonable methodology of allocating costs to these grant programs and did not maintain proper supporting invoices. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable – Repeat finding (see 2023-003) Recommendation – Management should implement policies and procedures that strengthen internal control over compliance in relation to activities allowed and cost principles. The policy and procedure should be designed to ensure that a reasonable allocation methodology is implemented and followed or that time and effort is certified by the employee on a regular basis. In addition, management should implement a document retention policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.334.
Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse ALN No. 93.959 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Opioid STR ALN No. 93.788 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Criteria or Specific Requirement – Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Cost Principles – 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E, and Period of Performance – 2 CFR sections 200.308, 200.309, and 200.403(h) Condition – A sample of 80 expenditures were selected from each of the following populations: • ALN No. 93.959 – 1,152 items totaling $1,077,416 • ALN No. 93.788 – 1,222 items totaling $2,537,080 The samples were not, and are not intended to be, statistically valid. Of the 80 expenditures tested from each grant program, the following were determined to lack appropriate supporting documentation to support being charged to grant program: • ALN No. 93.959 - 41 items totaling $25,810, including projected errors over the total population totaling $191,145 • ALN No. 93.788 - 10 items totaling $72,347, including projected errors over the total population totaling $207,012 The Organization did not have adequate supporting documentation demonstrating actual time and effort reporting and lacked evidence of supporting invoices. Cause – The Organization charged budgeted percentages to the grant programs without a system in place to monitor and track that actual time and effort was consistent with budgeted percentages. In addition, the Organization charged expenditures to the grant programs without evidence of supporting invoices. Effect or potential effect – Costs charged to the grant programs could have varied from actual time and effort. In addition, costs charged to the grant could not be supported by actual invoices. Questioned costs – • ALN No. 93.959 - $25,810 • ALN No. 93.788 - $72,347 Context – The Organization did not have a reasonable methodology of allocating costs to these grant programs and did not maintain proper supporting invoices. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable – Repeat finding (see 2023-003) Recommendation – Management should implement policies and procedures that strengthen internal control over compliance in relation to activities allowed and cost principles. The policy and procedure should be designed to ensure that a reasonable allocation methodology is implemented and followed or that time and effort is certified by the employee on a regular basis. In addition, management should implement a document retention policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.334.
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank accounts and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Community Development Block Grant / Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $850,079 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CDBG-DR program. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank accounts and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Community Development Block Grant / Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $850,079 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CDBG-DR program. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403 states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $768,525 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CSLFRF programs. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect -These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs – None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $768,525 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the CSLFRF programs. Criteria - Per the Compliance and Reporting Guidance – Part I: General Guidance – Section D: Uniform Administrative Requirements – Section 10: Reporting: establishes that: All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Recipients should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, recipients need to establish controls to ensure completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect -These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs – None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $4,115,693 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the grants. Criteria - The state is required to make an accounting of eligible costs. Similarly, the subrecipient must make an accounting to the state. In submitting the accounting, the entity is required to certify that reported costs were incurred in performance of eligible work, that the approved work was completed, that the project in in compliance with the provisions of the State Agreement, all grants conditions were met, and the provisions for that project were made in accordance with the applicable payment provisions. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Condition - The Municipality’s staff was unable to provide officially prepared and certified reports supporting compliance with the filing and submission requirements for reports and financial information, as established by federal award and regulatory agreements. Similarly, reconciliations were not provided between the information used to prepare the required and submitted reports and the formal data recorded in the Municipality’s official accounting system. Due to these conditions, compliance with the reporting requirements established by the federal grantor and effectiveness of related internal controls could not be verified. Based on an analysis prepared by the Municipality of the bank account and certain records and subsidiary ledgers designated for managing Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) funds, including transactions during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, and subsequent disbursements, a total of $4,115,693 was either expended or transferred to the General Fund to cover eligible expenditures under the terms permitted by the grants. Criteria - The state is required to make an accounting of eligible costs. Similarly, the subrecipient must make an accounting to the state. In submitting the accounting, the entity is required to certify that reported costs were incurred in performance of eligible work, that the approved work was completed, that the project in in compliance with the provisions of the State Agreement, all grants conditions were met, and the provisions for that project were made in accordance with the applicable payment provisions. Also, as established in the 2 CFR Section 200.302 (a) of the Uniform Guidance, the non-Federal entity’s financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.403, states that otherwise authorized by statue, costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity and be adequately documented. Cause - There is a lack of adequate knowledge and training among personnel assigned to the management and preparation of reports required by this federal award. Additionally, the Municipality did not demonstrate, nor did it provide evidence, that it has designed and implemented an adequate system of procedures and internal controls to monitor the activity, filing, and custody of reports, as required by the federal award and the pass-through entity. These deficiencies limit the Municipality’s ability to document and support compliance with the reporting requirements. Effect - These conditions expose the program to noncompliance with the reporting requirements established in the grant agreement. Furthermore, the Municipality may be at risk of the grantor questioning the allowability and use of federal funds. Recommendation - We recommend that the responsible personnel or department identify, compile, and retain all reports required under the grant agreement, including reconciliations with the Municipality’s official accounting records and subsidiary ledgers. Additionally, it is essential for the Municipality to develop, document, and implement a comprehensive training program, along with written guidelines and procedures, for all personnel involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of these federal funds. Questioned Costs - None
Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: Illinois Department of Human Services Pass-Through Number: 45CCB03514; 45CCB04278; 45CCB00648 Award Period: 07/01/2023 – 06/30/2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Immaterial Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award's period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). A period of performance may contain one or more budget periods. Condition: Costs outside of the period of performance were charged to the grant. Questioned Costs: $7,311 Context: Four (4) of the twenty (20) transactions selected for testing. Cause: Oversight. Effect: The Organization may allocate unallowable costs to the federal grant. Repeat Finding: Yes, prior year finding number was 2023-004 Recommendation: Management should review and revise its process for allocating costs to federal grants to include additional layers of review and so that costs for which some or all are from outside of the period of performance, may be appropriately excluded from the federal grant. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: Illinois Department of Human Services Pass-Through Number: 45CCB03514; 45CCB04278; 45CCB00648 Award Period: 07/01/2023 – 06/30/2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Immaterial Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: As described in § 200.403, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time. Condition: The Organization incorrectly calculated indirect costs for one of thirteen transactions selected for testing. Questioned Costs: $41 Context: The Organization calculates the indirect costs to be reimbursed based on total direct expenses less contractual services. For one of the thirteen transactions selected for testing, the indirect cost was not calculated correctly. Cause: Oversight. Effect: The Organization requested reimbursement for indirect costs in excess of their provisional rate of 28.28%. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend management recalculate the indirect cost rate based on the monthly grant invoice submitted to the funder for reimbursement to ensure indirect costs are appropriate. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Program: COVID 19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Relief Fund Assistance Listing: 21.027 Pass-Through Entity: Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development Pass-Through Award Number and Period: (7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Activities/Costs Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria or Specific Requirement: Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should comply with guidance in "Standards for Internal Control in the Federal GovernmenT" issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the "Internal Control Integrated Framework", issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Compliance: The 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E is applicable to expenditures under SLFRF unless stated otherwise. Given the purpose and very broad scope of eligible uses of the revenue replacement funds, only a subset of the requirements in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E apply to recipients use of such funds, as follows: 2 CFR 200.400(a) - (c), and (e) Policy guide; 200.403(a), (c), (d), (g), and (h) Factors affecting allowability of costs; and 200.404(e) Reasonable costs. Condition: The Town didnt maintain adequate documentation (i.e. invoices) to support the existence, allowability and approval of CSLFRF funds used to support programmatic costs. Context: The Town failed to provide supporting documentation to auditors for 16 out of 60 expenditures tested. Therefore, we could not determine if costs were allowable under the program. In addition, the town failed to provide supporting documentation for the review and approval of 24 out of 60 expenditures tested. Questioned Costs: $102,612. Cause: The Town transferred the funds to the grant in the accounting system but failed to maintain an audit trail to document the allowability and approval for the use of federal funds. Effect: Auditors were unable to verify the Towns compliance with program requirements. Recommendation: The Town should evaluate its current policies, implement proper controls, and perform additional training to ensure that, prior to charging costs to the program adequate documentation exists and maintained to support those costs, they are reviewed by a supervisor who is knowledgeable of the regulations regarding allowable program costs and that documentation of review is maintained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Inadequate Documentation for Expenses (Assistance Listing 21.019 ARPA) Criteria: 2 CFR §200.403–405 requires that costs charged to federal awards be adequately documented, allowable, and allocable. Condition: During our walk through of the expenditure cycle, we discovered the following issues: • Some vouchers were not prepared or lacked proper authorization and supporting source documents. • Multiple transactions were missing receipts or had incomplete vouchers. • Instances of the same check number being used twice in the general ledger. • Certain check numbers were not entered into the software program. Cause: Inadequate internal controls over documentation and expenditure tracking. Effect: Risk of unallowable costs being charged to federal programs and potential disallowance of expenses. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine exact amount due to lack of documentation. Recommendation: RTMC should enforce strict policies for maintaining proper documentation to verify and support costs. This ensures all expenses are allowable, reasonable, and allocable.
Inadequate Documentation for Expenses (Assistance Listing 21.019 ARPA) Criteria: 2 CFR §200.403–405 requires that costs charged to federal awards be adequately documented, allowable, and allocable. Condition: During our walk through of the expenditure cycle, we discovered the following issues: • Some vouchers were not prepared or lacked proper authorization and supporting source documents. • Multiple transactions were missing receipts or had incomplete vouchers. • Instances of the same check number being used twice in the general ledger. • Certain check numbers were not entered into the software program. Cause: Inadequate internal controls over documentation and expenditure tracking. Effect: Risk of unallowable costs being charged to federal programs and potential disallowance of expenses. Questioned Costs: Unable to determine exact amount due to lack of documentation. Recommendation: RTMC should enforce strict policies for maintaining proper documentation to verify and support costs. This ensures all expenses are allowable, reasonable, and allocable.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024), 235GA32N1099 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $7,388 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $1,087,437.24 were expended and reported on the Wilkinson County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 39 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. For eight of the 10 sample expenditures that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed five of these same expenditures and a sample of 29 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted with expenditures incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package and/or purchase files for 17 additional expenditures. • The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for eight small purchase expenditures reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,237 in procurement transactions that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, known questioned costs of $7,388 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the population of procurements that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process of $56,274, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $29,200. Cause: The School District did not follow its policies and procedures that govern the nonpersonal services expenditure process for federal programs. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024), 235GA32N1099 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $7,388 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $1,087,437.24 were expended and reported on the Wilkinson County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 39 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. For eight of the 10 sample expenditures that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed five of these same expenditures and a sample of 29 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted with expenditures incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package and/or purchase files for 17 additional expenditures. • The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for eight small purchase expenditures reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,237 in procurement transactions that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, known questioned costs of $7,388 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the population of procurements that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process of $56,274, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $29,200. Cause: The School District did not follow its policies and procedures that govern the nonpersonal services expenditure process for federal programs. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
2024 – 001: Improper Payroll Calculation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Federal Program Name: Research & Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 81.049 Federal Award Identification Number: DE-SC0023385 Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Internal Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Compliance – Per 2 CFR § 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award to be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award regarding types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally‐financed and other activities of the non‐Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally‐financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: The University incorrectly calculated payroll costs charged to the grant after an employee was double paid for the same work hours. Questioned costs: $400. Context: This condition occurred for 1 out of 40 payroll costs selected for testing resulting in $400 being incorrectly charged to the program. Cause: An employee failed to accurately enter time worked into the university timekeeping system for the pay period 5/1/24 – 5/15/24. The employee reported the hours to their department contact on 5/29/24, which was after the pay period had closed and paychecks had already been processed. The department liaison contacted Kronos Support to have the hours added to the timecard retroactively. Kronos Support received confirmation from the employee that the missed hours could be added to the paycheck for 6/14/24. During payroll processing for 6/14/24, Kronos Support added the missed hours to the employee’s payline on 6/5/24. The department liaison also submitted a CU Special Pay for the same missed hours on 6/5/24. Due to the timing of each separate transaction, Kronos Support did not have visibility into the duplication of the hours. The department failed to identify the duplication during its review of payroll reports. Effect: Expenditures may be incorrectly charged to the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the institution strengthen its internal controls to ensure that expenditures are reviewed and adjusted for, if necessary, in a timely manner. Views of responsible officials: Management acknowledges the finding.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria – Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition- As a result of our audit procedures, we identified function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. Cause and Effect – The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria – Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition- As a result of our audit procedures, we identified function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. Cause and Effect – The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria – Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition- As a result of our audit procedures, we identified function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. Cause and Effect – The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria – Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition- As a result of our audit procedures, we identified function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. Cause and Effect – The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria – Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. Title 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition- As a result of our audit procedures, we identified function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. Cause and Effect – The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence; Capital Case Litigation Initiative Assistance Listing Number: 16.820; 16.746 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Multiple Award Period: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Other Matters Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.516(4): Known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for a Federal program which is not audited as a major program should be reported as finding. Except for audit follow-up, the auditor is not required under this part to perform audit procedures for such a Federal program; therefore, the auditor will normally not find questioned costs for a program that is not audited as a major program. However, if the auditor does become aware of questioned costs for a Federal program that is not audited as a major program (e.g., as part of audit follow-up or other audit procedures) and the known questioned costs are greater than $25,000, then the auditor must report this as an audit finding. Additionally, per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.303, nonfederal entities receiving federal awards are required to establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. CFR 200.403(a) requires costs incurred on federal awards to be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. Condition: CLA was notified by the Post-Award Office of Sponsored Programs that they were informed about several irregularities and potentially unallowable costs related to certain Department of Justice Awards. Context: The University conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Idaho State Board of Education Internal Audit and Advisory Services, the investigation identified unallowable costs/activities that were charged to Department of Justice Awards. The University notified the Department of Justice of this situation through a Disclosure Letter to the Department. The disallowed costs were related to time and effort that was not allocable to the affected grants as well as lobbying efforts and related indirect cost recoveries. Questioned costs: $65,750.67. Effect: The University was out of compliance as it relates to charging disallowable costs/activities to federal programs. Cause: An employee was found to have intentionally overridden the system of internal controls in violation of University policy. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to foster a research and creative activity environment that stresses the importance of compliance and prompt disclosure and resolution of any self-identified issues. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence; Capital Case Litigation Initiative Assistance Listing Number: 16.820; 16.746 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Multiple Award Period: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Other Matters Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.516(4): Known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for a Federal program which is not audited as a major program should be reported as finding. Except for audit follow-up, the auditor is not required under this part to perform audit procedures for such a Federal program; therefore, the auditor will normally not find questioned costs for a program that is not audited as a major program. However, if the auditor does become aware of questioned costs for a Federal program that is not audited as a major program (e.g., as part of audit follow-up or other audit procedures) and the known questioned costs are greater than $25,000, then the auditor must report this as an audit finding. Additionally, per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.303, nonfederal entities receiving federal awards are required to establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. CFR 200.403(a) requires costs incurred on federal awards to be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. Condition: CLA was notified by the Post-Award Office of Sponsored Programs that they were informed about several irregularities and potentially unallowable costs related to certain Department of Justice Awards. Context: The University conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Idaho State Board of Education Internal Audit and Advisory Services, the investigation identified unallowable costs/activities that were charged to Department of Justice Awards. The University notified the Department of Justice of this situation through a Disclosure Letter to the Department. The disallowed costs were related to time and effort that was not allocable to the affected grants as well as lobbying efforts and related indirect cost recoveries. Questioned costs: $65,750.67. Effect: The University was out of compliance as it relates to charging disallowable costs/activities to federal programs. Cause: An employee was found to have intentionally overridden the system of internal controls in violation of University policy. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to foster a research and creative activity environment that stresses the importance of compliance and prompt disclosure and resolution of any self-identified issues. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Finding: Allowable Costs and Allowable Activities Federal Assistance Listing Number 84.425U – COVID-19 – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER III) Department of Education, Passed-Through Colorado Department of Education Award Number – 4414/4431/9414; Award Year 2021 Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403 factors affecting allowability of costs – costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, (d) be accorded consistent treatment, (e) be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, (f) to be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period and (g) be adequately documented. In addition, according to 2 CFR Part 200.303, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: During our testing we noted the following: a. 3 out of the 25 payroll selections applied to the grant did not agree back to supporting payroll information. b. The indirect costs applied to the grant were not consistently applied between the quarters of the fiscal year due to variations in the indirect cost base used. Questioned Costs: a. $2,089. Questioned costs were determined by reviewing the payroll registers for the three impacted selections. b. None. The District under applied the amount of indirect costs allowable to the grant. Context: a. We tested 25 payroll, 25 nonpayroll and 25 fringe benefit transactions applied to the grant for the year ended June 30, 2024. The tested population covered expenditures of $7.1 million and the total population of expenditures were approximately $24.4 million. A non-statistical sampling methodology was used to select the sample. b. We tested the four quarters indirect costs calculations which were applied to the above grant award numbers for the year ended June 30, 2024. The tested population covered expenditures of $3.0 million and the total population of expenditures were approximately $3.1 million. A non-statistical sampling methodology was used to select the sample. Effect: The District did not have adequate internal controls in place over the ESSER grant which resulted in unallowable costs being applied to the grant and inconsistently applying indirect costs to the grant. Cause: The District continued to experience turnover within the positions overseeing grants during fiscal year 2024. There were not detailed reviews over the calculations and supporting documentation used to determine the expenditure amount to be applied to the grant. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that the District strengthen the internal controls surrounding review of all expenditures applied against federal grants including the supporting detail or calculations used to determine the expenditure amount to help ensure it recalculates and is consistent with District polices and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We agree with the finding. See separate report for planned corrective actions.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 93.323, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, COVID-19 - Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - 2024 Pass through Entity - Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 200.300(a), nonfederal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should align with the guidance in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(g), costs must be adequately documented. Condition - The School District's controls did not prevent, or detect and correct in a timely manner, costs charged to the grant in excess of the related invoices. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A - Refer to context below. Context - In a sample of 13 non payroll related transactions, we identified 3 transactions where the costs charged to the grant exceeded the related invoices. The School District used a manual allocation process through a manual journal entry to charge expenses to the grant that resulted in the grant being charged $48,447 in excess of the supporting invoices. As of June 30, 2024, the School District had not yet requested reimbursement for the excess costs charged; the request was made and payment was received subsequent to year end. Upon identification of the error, the School District posted a manual journal entry to remove the duplicate costs of $48,447 from the grant fund and reduced the SEFA by this amount for the year ended June 30, 2024. The School District followed the guidance of the pass through entity provided subsequent to year end. Cause and Effect - Controls in place did not prevent, or detect and correct in a timely manner, an instance of noncompliance. The controls in place to verify that the manual adjusting journal entry was complete and accurate were not effective. As a result, the initial SEFA provided to the auditors was overstated by $48,447. The SEFA for the year ended June 30, 2024 was corrected. Recommendation - We recommend that the School District review its processes and controls to ensure the preparation and review of journal entries to charge costs to grant funds include a review for duplicate expenses. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - The Grant Accounting team will develop a standard operating procedure on review and approval of journal entries. The Grant Account Team will provide training to Grant Compliance staff members on the defined process. Grant Compliance Senior Director and Assistant Director will be responsible for ensuring journal requests are submitted following the outlined operating procedure. Grant Accounting staff members will review submitted materials to ensure no invoice is overcharged and then process journal request.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Special Education Cluster and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There we no questioned costs identified. Context: During the testing of a sample of 40 payroll disbursements charged to the Special Education Cluster during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For eight transactions selected, management was unable to provide an approved contract to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For two transactions selected, management was unable to provide approved timecards for the selected hourly employee and time period. For seven transactions selected, management was unable to provide time and effort logs to support the allocation of one employee’s salary between the federal grant and the Education fund. The lack of controls was systematic throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District's management establish a system of internal controls related to payroll disbursement charged to federal awards to ensure that the costs allocated are properly supported by contracts, timecards, and that the methodology for salary employees allocated to grant are supported by time and effort documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Special Education Cluster and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There we no questioned costs identified. Context: During the testing of a sample of 40 payroll disbursements charged to the Special Education Cluster during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For eight transactions selected, management was unable to provide an approved contract to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For two transactions selected, management was unable to provide approved timecards for the selected hourly employee and time period. For seven transactions selected, management was unable to provide time and effort logs to support the allocation of one employee’s salary between the federal grant and the Education fund. The lack of controls was systematic throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District's management establish a system of internal controls related to payroll disbursement charged to federal awards to ensure that the costs allocated are properly supported by contracts, timecards, and that the methodology for salary employees allocated to grant are supported by time and effort documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Education Stabilization Fund and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: $730.43 Context: During the testing of payroll disbursements charged to the Education Stabilization Fund grant awards during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For 16 payroll disbursements, in a sample of 40, management was unable to provide an approved employee contract or hourly rate ordinance to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For one transaction selection, an employee received a $730.43 one-time payment for a Teacher Appreciation Grant (TAG) funded by the 84.425U award. The Teacher Appreciation Grant has its own fund and is a state/local grant received to reward high-performing, eligible certified staff. The selected employee is a non-certified employee and did not qualify for a TAG award. There was no documentation provided to support work performed under this award to support allowability of the cost incurred. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District maintain supporting documentation for vendor and payroll disbursements to support costs charged to the federal grant awards. For payroll disbursements charged to Federal awards, management should maintain time records to support payroll costs allocated to Education Stabilization Grant funds to verify they are allowable and supported by documentation for work performed under the award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding Number 2024-004: Costs Incurred Outside Period of Performance (Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over compliance and Instance of Noncompliance – Period of Performance) FALN Number 16.575; Federal Agency/Pass-through Entity – Program Name U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime – Crime Victim Assistance; Award Number 94-3302014; Award Year 2023-2024 Criteria: 2024 Compliance Supplement and 2 CFR 200.403(h) stated that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance. Condition/Context: As a result of our audit procedures, we noted 1 timesheet tested in which the costs incurred were charged outside of the program’s performance period. The timesheet had payroll costs incurred during the pay period of 12/24/2023 – 1/6/2024; however, the contract had a performance period of 1/1/2024 – 12/31/2024. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, Finding Number 2023-007 Cause and Effect: The Health System did not have proper controls in place to ensure only costs incurred in the period of performance were charged to the program, which resulted in costs outside of period of performance being charged to the program. Questioned Cost: None Recommendation: We recommend management review policies and procedures of the program to ensure the costs incurred are appropriately charged based on the contracts’ performance periods. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding. The Health System has finalized the standard work procedure titled, Request for Funds/Reimbursement Claims (2-201’s), to ensure costs are appropriately charged based on the contract’s performance periods. Review of cost activity will occur in fiscal year 2025 to ensure policy is followed.
Criteria: Allowable Costs/Activites Allowed. The District is required to report allowable costs/activities allowed based on the grant, the grant budget and for the period of the grant. In general, grantees are not allowed to begin an activity or obligate or expend funds that will be charged to a state or federal grant until a substantially approvable initial application (see 34 CFR 76.708) has been received at ISBE. At a minimum, a “substantially approvable application” is a complete grant application and supporting budget detail with assurances. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application prior to the program begin date (usually July 1) will be granted an appropriate project begin date for the following fiscal year unless state appropriation authority has not been approved. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application after July 1 will be assigned a project begin date no earlier than when the initial application was received at ISBE or the program begin date (whichever is later). Condition: It was noted that the Title I grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. Due to the late start date, any expenditures that were obligated or services that were provided prior to the submittal date were not grant allowable costs. The expenditure reports that were submitted and subsequently reimbursed included costs from 7/1/23 - 12/18/23, which occured prior to the grant start date. Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) and guidelines established above, costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Questioned Costs: There are $114,912 questioned costs associated with this grant. Context: The Title I grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. The expenditure report submitted on 3/8/24 for expenditures through that date, included salaries, benefits, purchased services, and supplies that occurred before the grant start date of 12/19/23. There are seven employees who are paid through the grant, and approximately 7 paychecks and benefits from July through the first December paycheck, totaling $99,364.87, were allocated and claimed in the 3/8/24 expenditure report under Instruction Salaries. There were two expenditures claimed in Instruction Supplies in the 3/8/24 expenditure report that were purchased in August 2023, totaling $497.09. There was one expenditure claimed in Other Support Services Supplies in the 3/8/24 expenditure report that was purchased in August 2023, totaling $1,512.50. There were 8 expenditures claimed in Assessment & Testing Purchased Services in the 3/31/24 expenditure report that were all purchased in July 2023, totaling $13,537.50. This sum of these expenditures claimed represent a total questioned costs of $114,911.96. Effect: The District mistakenly claimed $114,912 of unallowable expenses. There is an increased risk that these funds will be subject to repayment as they were incorrectly submitted for reimbursement. Cause: This was an oversight by management personnel in the District when submitting the first expenditure report for the grant. The District mistakenly included expenses occuring before the application start-date. Recommendation: The District should take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner to ensure that they are able to claim all expenses as budgeted. The District should ensure that expenditure reports filed in grants with begin dates occuring after the start of the fiscal year does not include expenses occuring before the begin date, including reconciling general ledger records against the expenditure reports prior to submission. Management's Response: The District will take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner. The District will take all necessary steps to reconcile the general ledger to the expenditure reports to ensure ineligible costs are not included on the expenditure report.
Criteria: Allowable Costs/Activites Allowed. The District is required to report allowable costs/activities allowed based on the grant, the grant budget and for the period of the grant. In general, grantees are not allowed to begin an activity or obligate or expend funds that will be charged to a state or federal grant until a substantially approvable initial application (see 34 CFR 76.708) has been received at ISBE. At a minimum, a “substantially approvable application” is a complete grant application and supporting budget detail with assurances. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application prior to the program begin date (usually July 1) will be granted an appropriate project begin date for the following fiscal year unless state appropriation authority has not been approved. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application after July 1 will be assigned a project begin date no earlier than when the initial application was received at ISBE or the program begin date (whichever is later). Condition: It was noted that the IDEA Preschool Flowthrough grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. Due to the late start date, any expenditures that were obligated or services that were provided prior to the submittal date were not grant allowable costs. The expenditure reports that were submitted and subsequently reimbursed included costs from 7/1/23 - 12/18/23, which occured prior to the grant start date. Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) and guidelines established above, costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Questioned Costs: There are $4,646 questioned costs associated with this grant. Context: The IDEA Preschool Flowthrough grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. The expenditure report submitted 12/31/23 for expenditures through that date, included purchased services that occurred before the grant start date of 12/19/23. There were 2 expenditures claimed in Payments to Other Governmental Unit Purchased Services in the 12/19/23 expenditure report that were all purchased in September and November 2023, totaling $4,646, which represent the total questioned costs of for the grant years. Effect: The District mistakenly claimed $4,646 of unallowable expenses. There is an increased risk that these funds will be subject to repayment as they were incorrectly submitted for reimbursement. Cause: This was an oversight by management personnel in the District when submitting the first expenditure report for the grant. The District mistakenly included expenses occuring before the application start-date. Recommendation: The District should take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner to ensure that they are able to claim all expenses as budgeted. The District should ensure that expenditure reports filed in grants with begin dates occuring after the start of the fiscal year does not include expenses occuring before the begin date, including reconciling general ledger records against the expenditure reports prior to submission. Management's Response: The District will take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner. The District will take all necessary steps to reconcile the general ledger to the expenditure reports to ensure ineligible costs are not included on the expenditure report.