2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-013 The Department of Corrections improperly charged $37,392 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $37,392 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of financial Management allocated approximately $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent approximately $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Corrections spent $240 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $37,392 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method and randomly selected and examined 59 monthly payments out of a total population of 29,459. In addition to the 59 payments, we judgmentally picked two individually significant items. We examined the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found one instance where an employee?s payroll overpayment totaling $37,392 was identified and referred to collections by the Department, but was inadvertently charged to the CRF. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the actual questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the overpayment made to an employee from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $37,392. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department of Corrections (DOC) would like to thank the State Auditor?s Office (SAO) for the audit of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) grant. The Department agrees that questioned costs were charged to the grant due to an employee?s overpayment. While the SAO has complimented our internal controls and processes for being able to track each line item in the CRF, we also know that internal controls can always be improved. The Department has additional allowable costs that were not charged to the grant which should compensate for the questioned costs identified and intends to discuss this change with the funder. The Department appreciated the patience of the SAO in obtaining supporting documentation and having clarifying conversations during the audit. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-014 The Department of Social and Health Services improperly charged $390 to the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Known Questioned Cost Amount: $390 Background In March 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which authorized the spending of $2.2 trillion in federal funds to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF), which authorized $150 billion in federal financial assistance for state, territorial, tribal, and certain eligible local governments. Through the CARES Act, Washington was awarded about $2.95 billion of CRF money to help fund the state?s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of this amount, the Office of Financial Management allocated about $2.2 billion to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent about $345 million in CRF funds. The CARES Act requires recipients to only use CRF payments to cover: ? Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency (COVID-19) ? Costs that were not accounted for in the government?s most recently approved budget as of March 27, 2020 ? Costs that were incurred during the period that begins March 1, 2020, and ends December 31, 2021 In fiscal year 2022, the Department of Social and Health Services spent $40 million in CRF funds. The Department used the funds to cover payroll costs for employees who were substantially dedicated to responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department improperly charged $390 to the CRF. We found the Department had adequate internal controls to ensure it materially complied with activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles requirements. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 83 monthly payments out of a total population of 9,415. We reviewed the supporting documentation for each monthly payment and found: ? One overpayment for four hours overtime and overtime shift totaling $208. ? One payment where there was no supporting documentation for an employee?s shift differential pay of $7.50. ? One overpayment for call-back pay totaling $174.23. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Department followed procedures for approving payroll costs. However, multiple reviews did not prevent the unsupported shift differential pay and the two overpayments from being charged to the CRF. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs The Department improperly charged the CRF for payroll costs totaling $390. Based on the unallowable payments, we estimate the likely questioned costs for this grant to be $45,266. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendation We recommend the Department consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid. Department?s Response The Department concurs with the audit finding. If the grantor contacts the Department regarding the questioned costs, the Department will discuss the way we used the funds and will take additional action if appropriate. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-016 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments to subrecipients of the Emergency Rental Assistance program were allowable and properly supported. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.023 COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Program Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: N/A Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs / Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $255,642,551 Background Congress passed two acts authorizing federal funds for the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, enacted on December 27, 2020, provided $25 billion for ERA. These funds are known as ERA1. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted on March 11, 2021, provided $21.55 billion in additional funding for ERA. These funds are known as ERA2. The funds are provided directly to states, U.S. territories, local governments and, in the case of ERA1, Indian tribes, to assist eligible households through existing or newly created rental assistance programs. The Department of Commerce administers the ERA program in Washington. The Department subawarded federal funds to subrecipients to provide financial assistance to households, landlords and utility providers. In fiscal year 2022, the Department spent about $450 million in ERA1 and ERA2 funds. During the audit period, the Department allocated program funds to 38 ERA1 subrecipients and 12 ERA2 subrecipients. Grant recipients may use ERA1 and ERA2 funds for administrative expenses, housing stability services, financial assistance, and other affordable rental housing and eviction prevention purposes. Most of the expenditures the Department spent were for financial assistance to eligible households, which included payment of rent, rental arrears, utilities and home energy costs, utilities and home energy costs arrears, housing stability services and other expenses related to housing. Under the ERA1 program, award funds used for ?other expenses? must be related to housing and ?incurred due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 outbreak.? The amount for prospective rent cannot exceed three months under a single household application. Financial assistance arrears may only cover household expenses accrued on or after March 13, 2020, up to a maximum 15 months for ERA1 and a maximum of 18 months under ERA1 and ERA2 combined. There is no maximum dollar amount for the cumulative financial assistance that may be provided on behalf of an eligible household beyond the requirement that the amounts paid be based on documentation of household income, leases and equivalent forms. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure payments for the ERA program were allowable and properly supported. During the audit period, the Department only required high-level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of the reimbursement payment, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for the ERA1 and ERA2 subrecipients. We reviewed the three fiscal reviews completed in the audit period and determined they were sufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported. However, we determined the Department did not complete fiscal reviews for 35 of the 38 ERA1 subrecipients (92 percent) and all 12 ERA2 subrecipients (100 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 55 out of 369 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally reviewed one individually significant payment that exceeded $23 million. In total, we examined more than $258 million in provider payments as part of the audit. Of the 56 payments examined, we identified 54 payments (96 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation and for which the subrecipient did not receive a fiscal review to ensure the payment(s) was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee the ERA program. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual fiscal monitoring reviews to ensure subrecipients had proper support for reimbursement payments. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to conduct monitoring for three subrecipients during the audit period. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not receive adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients and did not perform fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $255,642,551 in known federal questioned costs and $437,002,382 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflects this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement additional monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of the federal subaward ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. Every week of delay would increase the number of people at risk of dying. During fiscal years 2021 through 2023, the department created the following programs with federal funding: ? Eviction Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1.0 and 2.0, with Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State Legislature. ? Treasury Rent Assistance Program (T-RAP) 1.0 and 2.0, with funds awarded to the Department by the United States Department of Treasury. The Department endeavored to quickly deploy these programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines, as the federal government doubled down on passing legislation to provide much needed assistance to the states. At the time the Department received the first ERAP funds for rental assistance, the Department had current contracts with grantees for the same activity and for whom monitoring plans had been completed. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities, with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering on delivering services. Local governments have controls in place and a proven track record of administering housing assistance funds, so the Department has an inherent trust and confidence in their administrative and fiscal control functions, including the detailed review of expenditures. When the Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds (August 2020) the funding for the program was set to expire just four months after the federal award, requiring the Department to lift bureaucratic barriers and issue funds quickly. It was not until late December 2020 that Congress extended the end date and we were informed we could continue to fund the program into 2021. The Department had started a fiscal review process for ERAP 1 and ERAP 2 programs following those awards. Upon receiving the results of the fiscal year 2021 emergency rental assistance audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. The State Auditor?s Office identified this deficiency during fiscal year 2021. Following that, at the end of fiscal year 2022, the department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. Unfortunately this process had not been implemented in full to meet the second audit requirements for fiscal year 2022. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We will continue to submit monthly and quarterly data and reconciliation reports to the United States Department of Treasury and work with the Washington State Auditor?s Office in response to any current or future audits. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-019 The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: SLFRP0002 Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Cost Amount: $28,886,606 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF), as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, delivered $350 billion to state, local, and tribal governments to support the response to and recovery from the COVID-19 public health emergency. Washington received $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which the state?s Office of Financial Management allocated to state agencies for various programs. In fiscal year 2022, state agencies spent more than $1.4 billion in SLFRF funds, $132 million of which was spent by the Department of Commerce. The Department used SLFRF funds to administer and provide economic assistance to households at risk of eviction and homelessness primarily through the Eviction Rental Assistance Program (ERAP 2.0), in addition to transportation, tourism, and other pandemic-recovery projects. During fiscal year 2022, the Department expended about $111 million on reimbursements and advance payments to local governments and nonprofit organizations as subrecipients. These subrecipients were responsible for making direct payments of rent and utilities for eligible low-income households with overdue rent payments dating as far back as March 2020. Pass-through entities are required to monitor the activities of subrecipients to ensure they are properly using federal funds for allowable activities and expenditures. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Department did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements for monitoring subrecipients to ensure payments were allowable, properly supported, and met period of performance requirements for the SLFRF program. During the audit period, the Department only required summary level supporting documentation when approving subrecipient payments. Since detailed source documentation was not required at the time of reimbursement, the Department implemented a fiscal review process for ERAP 2.0 subrecipients. We determined that the Department did not perform fiscal reviews or any program reviews for 20 of its 32 subrecipients (63 percent) during the audit period. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review seven out of 12 subrecipients for which the Department completed monitoring during the audit period. We determined four of the seven fiscal reviews completed were insufficient for ensuring payments to these subrecipients were allowable and adequately supported, primarily because the support reviewed lacked enough detail to ensure the activities were allowable and within the period of performance. We also examined program monitoring documentation completed for these same seven subrecipients. The Department selected only one household from each subrecipient for eligibility verification. We determined these reviews did not provide reasonable assurance that payments to the subrecipients were made only on behalf of eligible households. We also used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and review 56 out of 627 payments. Additionally, we judgmentally selected and reviewed one individually significant payment of $6 million. In total, we examined 57 provider payments totaling $48.5 million. Of the 57 payments examined, we identified 37 (65 percent), including the individually significant payment, that did not have adequate documentation to ensure the payment was for allowable activities, met cost principles, and occurred within the award?s period of performance. We consider these internal control deficiencies to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. The issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition Management did not ensure that proper internal controls were in place to oversee ERAP 2.0 and the use of SLFRF funds. Department staff approved payments to subrecipients without reviewing adequate supporting documentation, and management relied on annual program and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients had proper support and only served eligible households. However, management said that due to limited staffing and resources, they were only able to monitor 12 subrecipients during the audit period, wherein staff elected to review just one household payment for each subrecipient for appropriateness. Furthermore, the program did not have written policies and procedures in place documenting the programmatic and fiscal monitoring requirements for staff to follow. Therefore, management could not ensure that reviews were thorough and consistent, included a valid sample of subrecipient records, and required detailed source documentation, including accounting support. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We determined the Department did not review adequate supporting documentation before paying subrecipients, and it did not perform adequate fiscal reviews to ensure that expenditures were for allowable activities. As a result, we identified $28,886,606 in known federal questioned costs and $71,007,353 in likely federal questioned costs. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). To ensure a representative sample, we stratified the population by dollar amount. Without establishing adequate internal controls and reviewing detailed supporting documentation from subrecipients, the Department cannot reasonably ensure it is using federal funds for allowable purposes and that spending occurs within the allowed period of performance. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Department: ? Implement written policies and monitoring procedures to ensure adequate review of each subrecipient?s use of federal funds ? Improve internal controls to ensure subrecipients provide adequate supporting documentation when requesting reimbursement ? Ensure it has sufficient staffing and resources to monitor each subrecipient, as required under Uniform Guidance ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Department?s Response The Coronavirus pandemic created an unprecedented crisis of imminent evictions for an estimated 200,000 households who would face homelessness. Prompt program implementation was critical to reducing evictions as homelessness was shown to increase the spread of COVID-19 leading to death. In fiscal year 202, Commerce created the Eviction Rent Assistance Programs 1.0 and 2.0: Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds allocated by the Washington State legislature to fund the program. All of the rental assistance programs included multiple funding allocations. To provide much needed assistance to the state, the Department quickly deployed the programs either concurrently or on overlapping timelines. The vast majority of our grantees are local government entities with whom the Department has a long history of contracting and partnering with to deliver services. Federal requirements dictate local governments ensure their internal controls meet standards to comply with all compliance requirements. The Department used that expectation to rely on their administrative and fiscal control functions to ensure compliance. The Department received the first emergency rental assistance funds in August 2020 and the funding was set to expire four months after the award issuance. The Department moved quickly to relieve barriers to issue funding. In December 2020 Congress extended the end date to continue the funding for this program into 2021. As a result of the fiscal year 2021 audit, it was determined the fiscal review must be completed for all program reimbursements, even if the detail review of expenditures was completed at our subrecipient level. The initial fiscal monitoring was based on previously conducted risk assessments, so not all payees received a fiscal monitoring. As a result of the deficiencies reported in the fiscal year 2021 audit, the program deployed new subrecipient monitoring risk assessment processes, and now completes a new assessment for each award at the time of the award. Once the deficiency was identified, the Department began to review supporting backup documentation for all expenditures. The current finding also focused on specific sets of expenditures which were not reviewed in detail. As a result, the Department is currently evaluating the best approach to obtain and review supporting documentation at a detail level to ensure compliance with all requirements. The Department continues to complete reviews of supporting documentation for fiscal year 2023 expenditures and we strive to meet all other program requirements. We thank the State Auditor?s Office for identifying areas we could improve to meet all compliance requirements for federal funding. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the Department for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the Department?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 332, Requirements for pass-through entities, establishes the requirements for all pass-through entities. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, describes the general criteria in order for a cost to be allowable under federal awards, including being adequately documented. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance, establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
2022-022 Washington State University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 84.007 Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant 84.033 Federal Work-Study Program 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program 84.063 Federal Pell Grant Program 84.268 Federal Direct Student Loans 84.379 Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of Education Federal Award/Contract Number: Various Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Special Tests and Provisions: Return of Title IV Funds Known Questioned Cost Amount: $2,582 Background As amended, Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education. When students who receive Title IV grant or loan assistance withdraw from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV aid the students have earned as of their withdrawal date. Schools calculate this by determining the percentage of program funds the students have earned and applying that percentage to the total amount of assistance that was or could have been disbursed to students for the payment period or period of enrollment as of their withdrawal date. If the total amount of Title IV assistance earned by students is less than the amount that was disbursed to them as of their withdrawal date, the institution is required to return the difference to the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and it cannot make any additional disbursements to students for the payment period or period of enrollment. In fiscal year 2022, Washington State University disbursed more than $205 million in Title IV funds to students. Description of Condition The University did not ensure that returns of Title IV funds were accurate for the Student Financial Assistance programs. We found the University had adequate internal controls over the return of Title IV funds, and it materially complied with the federal requirements. However, we identified questioned costs as the result of returns that were incorrectly calculated. We used a statistical sampling method to randomly select and examine 57 out of a total population of 873 students for which the University was required to calculate a return of Title IV funds. We found two students for whom the University incorrectly calculated the amount required to be returned to the Department. Specifically: ? One student had $489 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,801, resulting in a difference of $2,312. ? The second student had $2,590 returned to the Department. When recalculating the amount required to return, we found the University should have returned $2,860, resulting in a difference of $270. Federal regulations require the auditor to issue a finding when the known or estimated questioned costs identified in a single audit exceed $25,000. We are issuing this finding because, as stated in the Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs section of this finding, the estimated questioned costs exceed that threshold. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The University returned incorrect amounts because it did not verify that the students were eligible for all funds within their student accounts before calculating amounts and returning the Title IV funds to the Department. Staff responsible for calculating the amounts to return did not verify that loans that were never disbursed were excluded from the University?s calculation of unearned aid. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs We identified $2,582 in known federal questioned costs and $39,550 in likely federal questioned costs. We consider the $2,582 difference for the two students to be questioned costs because they had unearned financial aid still owed to the Department. At the time of the audit, the University had not processed a corrected return of funds for the two students. Our sampling methodology meets statistical sampling criteria under generally accepted auditing standards in AU-C 530.05. It is important to note that the sampling technique we used is intended to support our audit conclusions by determining if expenditures complied with program requirements in all material respects. Accordingly, we used an acceptance sampling formula designed to provide a high level of assurance, with a 95 percent confidence of whether exceptions exceeded our materiality threshold. Our audit report and finding reflect this conclusion. However, the likely improper payment projections are a point estimate and only represent our ?best estimate of total questioned costs,? as required by 2 CFR ? 200.516(3). We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the University: ? Verify student eligibility for all disbursed Title IV funds before calculating the amount of unearned aid required to be returned for students who have withdrawn from school ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid University?s Response Washington State University takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure compliance with federal requirements. The University appreciates the auditor acknowledgement that the University?s internal controls over the Return of Title IV funds are adequate. The two (out of 57) records with noted exception were isolated and should not be a reflection on the whole of the program or the University?s management of federal funds. These exceptions were identified by management when the records were pulled for auditor testing. Management had not made correction yet only because the audit was still in progress. Upon finding the isolated issues, management performed a review of all 873 students that fell in the audit population, performing calculations of each record to determine if there were any other errors. No errors that needed to be submitted to the Department of Education, other than the two in the test population, were noted. The University is working with the sponsor to ensure return of the known questioned costs can be properly facilitated. Internal processes have been further strengthened to provide for independent quality checks. A report was developed to identify and isolate anomalies, like returning more funds than were actually disbursed. The return to Title IV requirements are very complex and internal controls over compliance are regularly reviewed to ensure improvement and continued adherence to the requirements. The University thanks the State Auditor for bringing this issue to the University?s attention. Auditor?s Remarks We thank the University for its cooperation and assistance throughout the audit. We will review the status of the University?s corrective action during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200.1, Uniform Guidance establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.14 Program participation agreement, states in part: (b) By entering into a program participation agreement, an institution agrees that ? (24) It will comply with the requirements of ?668.22; Title 34 CFR Part 668, Student Financial Assistance General Provisions, Section 668.22 Treatment of title IV funds when a student withdraws, states in part: (a) General. (1) When a recipient of title IV grant or loan assistance withdraws from an institution during a payment period or period of enrollment in which the recipient began attendance, the institution must determine the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that the student earned as of the student?s withdrawal date in accordance with paragraph e) of this section. (4) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is less than the amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew? (i) The difference between these amounts must be returned to the title IV programs in accordance with paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section; and (ii) No additional disbursements may be made to the student for the payment period or period of enrollment. (5) If the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that the student earned as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section is greater than the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance, or both, that was disbursed to the student or on behalf of the student in the case of a PLUS loan, as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew, the difference between these amounts must be treated as a post-withdrawal disbursement in accordance with paragraph (a)(6) of this section and ?668.164(i). (e) Calculation of the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student ? (1) General. The amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that is earned by the student is calculated by? (i) Determining the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and (ii) Applying this percentage to the total amount of title IV grant or loan assistance that was disbursed (and that could have been disbursed, as defined in paragraph (l)(1) of this section) to the student, or on the student?s behalf, for the payment period of period of enrollment as of the student?s withdrawal date. (2) Percentage earned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has been earned by the student is? (iii) Equal to the percentage of the payment period or period of enrollment that the student completed (as determined in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section) as of the student?s withdrawal date, if this date occurs on or before? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in clock hours; or (iv) 100 percent, if the student?s withdrawal date occurs after? (A) Completion of 60 percent of the payment period or period of enrollment for a program that is measured in credit hours; or (B) Sixty percent of the clock hours scheduled to be completed for the payment period or period of enrollment for a program measured in clock hours. (3) Percentage unearned. The percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student is calculated by determining the complement of the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance earned by the student as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. (4) Total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned. The unearned amount of title IV assistance to be returned is calculated by subtracting the amount of title IV assistance earned by the student as calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section from the amount of title IV aid that was disbursed to the student as of the date of the institution?s determination that the student withdrew. (g) Return of unearned aid, responsibility of the institution. (1) The institution must return, in the order specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the lesser of? (i) The total amount of unearned title IV assistance to be returned as calculated under paragraph (e)(4) of this section; or (ii) An amount equal to the total institutional charges incurred by the student for the payment period or period of enrollment multiplied by the percentage of title IV grant or loan assistance that has not been earned by the student, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.