Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
FA 2024-001 Improve Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principes Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $21,615.33 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $11,379,058.14 were expended and reported on the Sumter County School District’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 40 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for two expenditures totaling $21,615.33 as these expenditures were not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendment within the Consolidated Application system, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $3,582,721.30 in nonpersonal service expenditures, known questioned costs of $21,615.33 were identified for expenditures that were not approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $6,624,968.03, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $39,969.86. Cause: The School District did not follow its policies and procedures that govern the nonpersonal services expenditure process for federal programs. The Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Coordinator did not ensure that all expenditures were included on the related consolidated application for the federal program. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that controls procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: The School District concurs with this finding per discussion with Jannie Carter, Finance Director, and Walter Knighton, Superintendent, on July 9, 2025.
8. Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): The compliance requirements for B. Allowability of Costs pursuant to § 200.403 state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…”. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program when completing the grant application. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, § 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets…”. 9. Condition: A sample of 118 payroll-related expenditures were randomly selected for testing using a random sampling approach, of which included a total of 37 district employees paid & claimed under this grant. These payroll-related expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Upon completing this testing, we noted the following discrepancies: -There were 4 employee salary & benefits claimed that were not included in the 22-4998-E3 grant budget detail. The budget specified teachers & paraprofessionals, and support staff were not included, resulting in known questioned costs of $4,857.50. -There were 11 employees where a portion of the claimed payroll & benefits were deemed allowable per the budget but $8,947.88 was deemed not allowable, resulting in known questioned costs of $8,947.88. -Additionally, there were $6,686.25 of the employee salary & benefits that was not deemed allowable per the budget as the pay period dates did not align with “loss of learning” related pay dates or other approved activities. 10. Questioned Costs: $20,492 of known questioned costs (based on testing 30.49% of population). $67,209 of projected questioned costs (estimate based on 100% of population). 11. Context: Upon testing a sample of $200,352.23 of payroll-related expenditures, known questioned costs of $20,491.63 were identified. Using the total salary & benefits claimed at 6/30/23 population of $722,722, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $67,209.45. 12. Effect: The District’s was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information throughout the application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as ISBE may require the District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. 13. Cause: The District did not establish appropriate internal control procedures, such as a review by appropriate personnel to ensure compliance with the approved ESSER 22-4998-E3 Budget prior to the expenditure of federal funds. Additionally, the existence of multiple ESSER programs and lack of understanding of the related grant application led to the District’s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the expenditure was properly claimed per the approved itemized budget that funded the expenditure. 14. Recommendation: The District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. 15. Management's response: The District has agreed with the findings and recommendations as presented. See Corrective Action Plan provided by the District.
Department of Education Finding 2023 – 009: ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) A Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Exist in the Review and Approval of Subrecipient Education Leading to Employment and Career Training Expenditure Reports by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2101PATANF (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2021) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) have worked collaboratively to assist expectant and parenting youth through an initiative called Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT). ELECT works with expectant and parenting youth who qualify for assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or are otherwise income-eligible, to support their continuation of or return to school to complete their secondary education. ELECT programs are operated by Local Education Agencies (LEA) that consist of school districts and Intermediate Units (IU). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, PDE passed funding through to 27 LEAs for the operation of ELECT programs. TANF ELECT program payments made by PDE to its 27 subrecipients during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 were $14.1 million, or 3.1 percent of total TANF expenditures of $455.7 million reported on the June 30, 2023 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. As part of our testing of subrecipient expenditures, we selected three subrecipient expenditure reports to test PDE’s procedures for processing subgrantee requests for reimbursement. Our testing found that for one of the three ELECT Expenditure Reports selected for testing, the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.415, Required certifications, states: Required certifications include: (a) To assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets, the annual and final fiscal reports or vouchers requesting payment under the agreements must include a certification, signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the non-Federal entity, which reads as follows: “By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812).” Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal controls, states: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of the Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 45 CFR Section 75.352, applicable to TANF states: All pass-through entities must: (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Management Directive 325.12 Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. PDE’s Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT) Operational Guidelines states in part: Authorized Signature: An authorized signature is required on expenditure reports for grants with federal funds. The authorized signatory is taking responsibility for the federal funds; make sure that someone of authority is signing the report. It will not be processed without the signature. Cause: Although PDE requires subrecipients to utilize an ELECT Expenditure Report template that includes a box for an authorized subgrantee signatory to sign which states: By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812). PDE’s review did not detect that the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. PDE did not follow their written operational guidelines which state that PDE should ensure that someone of authority is signing the report and that the expenditure report will not be processed without the signature. PDE management indicated that they monitor subrecipients and request backup documentation for expenditures listed in the requests for reimbursement; however, without subrecipient certifications only limited assurance of the allowability of the activities and costs for which the subrecipient was requesting reimbursement can be obtained. Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) Effect: Without appropriate certifications, PDE cannot be assured that subrecipient expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets. Further, the subrecipient noted in the condition above may have received unallowable cost reimbursements from the TANF program. PDE is not in compliance with federal regulations relating to required certifications, and a significant deficiency exists. If not corrected, the processing of expenditure reports without certifications could result in the reimbursement of unallowable costs and result in future grant awards being reduced. Recommendation: PDE should strengthen its procedures and controls to ensure that required certifications are obtained prior to passing funding through to subrecipients. Further, PDE should request that subgrantees resubmit any expenditure reports from which the required certifications were missing. Agency Response: PDE agrees with this finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Department of Education Finding 2023 – 009: ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) A Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Exist in the Review and Approval of Subrecipient Education Leading to Employment and Career Training Expenditure Reports by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2101PATANF (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2021) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) have worked collaboratively to assist expectant and parenting youth through an initiative called Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT). ELECT works with expectant and parenting youth who qualify for assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or are otherwise income-eligible, to support their continuation of or return to school to complete their secondary education. ELECT programs are operated by Local Education Agencies (LEA) that consist of school districts and Intermediate Units (IU). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, PDE passed funding through to 27 LEAs for the operation of ELECT programs. TANF ELECT program payments made by PDE to its 27 subrecipients during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 were $14.1 million, or 3.1 percent of total TANF expenditures of $455.7 million reported on the June 30, 2023 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. As part of our testing of subrecipient expenditures, we selected three subrecipient expenditure reports to test PDE’s procedures for processing subgrantee requests for reimbursement. Our testing found that for one of the three ELECT Expenditure Reports selected for testing, the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.415, Required certifications, states: Required certifications include: (a) To assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets, the annual and final fiscal reports or vouchers requesting payment under the agreements must include a certification, signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the non-Federal entity, which reads as follows: “By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812).” Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal controls, states: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of the Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 45 CFR Section 75.352, applicable to TANF states: All pass-through entities must: (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Management Directive 325.12 Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. PDE’s Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT) Operational Guidelines states in part: Authorized Signature: An authorized signature is required on expenditure reports for grants with federal funds. The authorized signatory is taking responsibility for the federal funds; make sure that someone of authority is signing the report. It will not be processed without the signature. Cause: Although PDE requires subrecipients to utilize an ELECT Expenditure Report template that includes a box for an authorized subgrantee signatory to sign which states: By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812). PDE’s review did not detect that the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. PDE did not follow their written operational guidelines which state that PDE should ensure that someone of authority is signing the report and that the expenditure report will not be processed without the signature. PDE management indicated that they monitor subrecipients and request backup documentation for expenditures listed in the requests for reimbursement; however, without subrecipient certifications only limited assurance of the allowability of the activities and costs for which the subrecipient was requesting reimbursement can be obtained. Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) Effect: Without appropriate certifications, PDE cannot be assured that subrecipient expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets. Further, the subrecipient noted in the condition above may have received unallowable cost reimbursements from the TANF program. PDE is not in compliance with federal regulations relating to required certifications, and a significant deficiency exists. If not corrected, the processing of expenditure reports without certifications could result in the reimbursement of unallowable costs and result in future grant awards being reduced. Recommendation: PDE should strengthen its procedures and controls to ensure that required certifications are obtained prior to passing funding through to subrecipients. Further, PDE should request that subgrantees resubmit any expenditure reports from which the required certifications were missing. Agency Response: PDE agrees with this finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
2023-004 Late Submission of and Discrepancies within Final Expenditure Reports Program Name/ Assistance Listing Number: 93. 959 Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Identification: Unknown Type of Finding: Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Reporting Criteria: According to 2 CFR §200.302, entities that receive federal awards must have accurate financial management systems that allow for the preparation of reports that reflect accurate, current, and complete disclosure of financial results. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.415(a) requires that financial reports must be based on the accounting records and accurately reflect the actual expenditures incurred. Furthermore, 2 CFR §200.328(b)(1) states that federal grant recipients are required to submit performance and financial reports within 90 days following the end of the grant period, unless an extension has been granted by the funding agency. Timely submission of these reports is essential to demonstrate compliance with grant terms and conditions. Condition: The auditor noted that certain expenditures in the final expenditures report submitted by the Organization exceeded the actual expenditures recorded in the general ledger and/or exceeded the grant budget. In addition, the auditor also noted that final reports were submitted to funding sources at least 5 months (150 days) after the end of the grant period. This suggests that Cleveland UMADAOP did not submit the reports within the required timeframe and may not have an effective process in place to track and meet reporting deadlines. Cause of Condition: The discrepancies appear to be the result of inadequate reconciliation processes between the general ledger and the financial reports. This may have been compounded by the misunderstanding of reporting requirements, leading to the inclusion of inaccurate figures in the final expenditures report. In addition, the late submission of final reports appears to result from the absence of a robust process for monitoring and tracking reporting deadlines. This may also indicate inadequate internal controls or insufficient staffing dedicated to managing grant compliance and reporting responsibilities. Effect: Reporting expenditures in excess of actual amounts may lead to non-compliance with federal grant requirements, and could result in questioned costs and potential disallowance of funds. Moreover, such inaccuracies undermine the reliability of financial reports and could impair the organization’s credibility with federal agencies and other stakeholders. In addition, failure to submit timely reports can lead to non-compliance with grant agreements, which may result in funding delays, penalties, or even the potential loss of future funding opportunities. Furthermore, late submissions may strain relationships with funding sources and damage the Organization’s reputation. Questioned Cost: $114,860 Recommendation: Cleveland UMADAOP should enhance its reconciliation procedures to ensure that reported expenditures accurately reflect actual amounts spent as recorded in the general ledger. Implementing a robust review process prior to the submission of final expenditure reports will help prevent discrepancies and ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Additionally, the Organization should implement a formal process to track and monitor all reporting deadlines associated with its grants. This process could include a centralized calendar, regular reminders, and a designated individual or team responsible for ensuring that all reports are completed and submitted on time. Additionally, the Organization should consider conducting training for staff involved in grant management and financial reporting to reinforce the importance of adhering to reporting deadlines andcompliance to requirements. Description of the Nature and Extent of Issues Reported: We consider the following materiality for consideration of materialnoncompliance for the major program 93.959 at 5% of the totalawards expended amounting to $51,253. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding and will implement corrective action.
FA 2023-002 Strengthen Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $7,360 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $1,743,621 were expended and reported on the Crawford County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2023. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 25 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for one expenditure totaling $7,360 as this expenditure was not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendments within the Consolidated Application system, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $262,816 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned cost of $7,360 was identified for the expenditure not properly approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $1,133,086, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $31,731. Cause: Due to oversight, management was unaware that the expenditure was not approved on the GaDOE Consolidated Application. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-061 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2022 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, a pass-through entity must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with § 180.300. Verification methods are provided in § 180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (c) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (g) Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F of this part. (h) Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. (i) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 and in program regulations. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our understanding of the program, program staff were interviewed regarding the existence of subrecipients. None of the staff interviewed identified any transactions involving subrecipients. However, in our testing of internal controls and compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles requirement, transactions were selected to assess compliance with this requirement. Upon receiving documentation from a contractor, we realized that the transactions with this supplier were in the capacity of a subrecipient. In addition, the SEFA submitted by the PRDF does not identify any transaction under a subrecipient related to this program. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. We examined four (4) vouchers related to these services; the contract, proposal and invoices do not indicate information related to subrecipients. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. The staff in charge of administering TANF funds were unaware of the factors required to properly identify subrecipient transactions. The total expenditure reflected in the database related to subrecipient activities totaled $686,052.17 for the audited fiscal year. After providing the requirements for a subrecipient, staff were interviewed again to verify whether other providers met the subrecipient requirements, but no other entities were identified. From our testing, we identified no other subrecipients. Although, in the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, all expenditures related to preventive services were included as pass-through expenditures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The staff in charge of administering the program were unaware of the factors that determine whether a contractor is a subrecipient or a contractor. ADSEF has not established an adequate procedures manual that demonstrates compliance with all requirements for subrecipient activities. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not have internal controls related to the identification, management, and reporting of subrecipient activities. This situation prevents compliance with all compliance requirements related to subrecipient monitoring. This situation prevented the proper presentation of Federal expenditures incurred under this program in the SEFA or other financial reports required by Federal agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS The PRDF must provide training to ADSEF personnel on the requirements and regulations related to subrecipient monitoring. We recommend that management establish internal controls and compliance measures that allow for the identification, reporting, and monitoring of subrecipient activities.
8. Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): The compliance requirements for B. Allowability of Costs pursuant to § 200.403 state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…”. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program when completing the grant application. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, § 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets…”. 9. Condition: A sample of 118 payroll-related expenditures were randomly selected for testing using a random sampling approach, of which included a total of 37 district employees paid & claimed under this grant. These payroll-related expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Upon completing this testing, we noted the following discrepancies: -There were 4 employee salary & benefits claimed that were not included in the 22-4998-E3 grant budget detail. The budget specified teachers & paraprofessionals, and support staff were not included, resulting in known questioned costs of $4,857.50. -There were 11 employees where a portion of the claimed payroll & benefits were deemed allowable per the budget but $8,947.88 was deemed not allowable, resulting in known questioned costs of $8,947.88. -Additionally, there were $6,686.25 of the employee salary & benefits that was not deemed allowable per the budget as the pay period dates did not align with “loss of learning” related pay dates or other approved activities. 10. Questioned Costs: $20,492 of known questioned costs (based on testing 30.49% of population). $67,209 of projected questioned costs (estimate based on 100% of population). 11. Context: Upon testing a sample of $200,352.23 of payroll-related expenditures, known questioned costs of $20,491.63 were identified. Using the total salary & benefits claimed at 6/30/23 population of $722,722, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $67,209.45. 12. Effect: The District’s was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information throughout the application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as ISBE may require the District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. 13. Cause: The District did not establish appropriate internal control procedures, such as a review by appropriate personnel to ensure compliance with the approved ESSER 22-4998-E3 Budget prior to the expenditure of federal funds. Additionally, the existence of multiple ESSER programs and lack of understanding of the related grant application led to the District’s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the expenditure was properly claimed per the approved itemized budget that funded the expenditure. 14. Recommendation: The District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. 15. Management's response: The District has agreed with the findings and recommendations as presented. See Corrective Action Plan provided by the District.
Department of Education Finding 2023 – 009: ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) A Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Exist in the Review and Approval of Subrecipient Education Leading to Employment and Career Training Expenditure Reports by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2101PATANF (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2021) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) have worked collaboratively to assist expectant and parenting youth through an initiative called Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT). ELECT works with expectant and parenting youth who qualify for assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or are otherwise income-eligible, to support their continuation of or return to school to complete their secondary education. ELECT programs are operated by Local Education Agencies (LEA) that consist of school districts and Intermediate Units (IU). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, PDE passed funding through to 27 LEAs for the operation of ELECT programs. TANF ELECT program payments made by PDE to its 27 subrecipients during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 were $14.1 million, or 3.1 percent of total TANF expenditures of $455.7 million reported on the June 30, 2023 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. As part of our testing of subrecipient expenditures, we selected three subrecipient expenditure reports to test PDE’s procedures for processing subgrantee requests for reimbursement. Our testing found that for one of the three ELECT Expenditure Reports selected for testing, the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.415, Required certifications, states: Required certifications include: (a) To assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets, the annual and final fiscal reports or vouchers requesting payment under the agreements must include a certification, signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the non-Federal entity, which reads as follows: “By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812).” Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal controls, states: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of the Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 45 CFR Section 75.352, applicable to TANF states: All pass-through entities must: (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Management Directive 325.12 Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. PDE’s Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT) Operational Guidelines states in part: Authorized Signature: An authorized signature is required on expenditure reports for grants with federal funds. The authorized signatory is taking responsibility for the federal funds; make sure that someone of authority is signing the report. It will not be processed without the signature. Cause: Although PDE requires subrecipients to utilize an ELECT Expenditure Report template that includes a box for an authorized subgrantee signatory to sign which states: By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812). PDE’s review did not detect that the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. PDE did not follow their written operational guidelines which state that PDE should ensure that someone of authority is signing the report and that the expenditure report will not be processed without the signature. PDE management indicated that they monitor subrecipients and request backup documentation for expenditures listed in the requests for reimbursement; however, without subrecipient certifications only limited assurance of the allowability of the activities and costs for which the subrecipient was requesting reimbursement can be obtained. Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) Effect: Without appropriate certifications, PDE cannot be assured that subrecipient expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets. Further, the subrecipient noted in the condition above may have received unallowable cost reimbursements from the TANF program. PDE is not in compliance with federal regulations relating to required certifications, and a significant deficiency exists. If not corrected, the processing of expenditure reports without certifications could result in the reimbursement of unallowable costs and result in future grant awards being reduced. Recommendation: PDE should strengthen its procedures and controls to ensure that required certifications are obtained prior to passing funding through to subrecipients. Further, PDE should request that subgrantees resubmit any expenditure reports from which the required certifications were missing. Agency Response: PDE agrees with this finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Department of Education Finding 2023 – 009: ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) A Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Exist in the Review and Approval of Subrecipient Education Leading to Employment and Career Training Expenditure Reports by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2101PATANF (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2021) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) have worked collaboratively to assist expectant and parenting youth through an initiative called Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT). ELECT works with expectant and parenting youth who qualify for assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or are otherwise income-eligible, to support their continuation of or return to school to complete their secondary education. ELECT programs are operated by Local Education Agencies (LEA) that consist of school districts and Intermediate Units (IU). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, PDE passed funding through to 27 LEAs for the operation of ELECT programs. TANF ELECT program payments made by PDE to its 27 subrecipients during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 were $14.1 million, or 3.1 percent of total TANF expenditures of $455.7 million reported on the June 30, 2023 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. As part of our testing of subrecipient expenditures, we selected three subrecipient expenditure reports to test PDE’s procedures for processing subgrantee requests for reimbursement. Our testing found that for one of the three ELECT Expenditure Reports selected for testing, the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.415, Required certifications, states: Required certifications include: (a) To assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets, the annual and final fiscal reports or vouchers requesting payment under the agreements must include a certification, signed by an official who is authorized to legally bind the non-Federal entity, which reads as follows: “By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812).” Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal controls, states: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of the Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 45 CFR Section 75.352, applicable to TANF states: All pass-through entities must: (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Management Directive 325.12 Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should establish and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system and evaluate the results. Management should remediate identified internal control deficiencies on a timely basis. PDE’s Education Leading to Employment and Career Training (ELECT) Operational Guidelines states in part: Authorized Signature: An authorized signature is required on expenditure reports for grants with federal funds. The authorized signatory is taking responsibility for the federal funds; make sure that someone of authority is signing the report. It will not be processed without the signature. Cause: Although PDE requires subrecipients to utilize an ELECT Expenditure Report template that includes a box for an authorized subgrantee signatory to sign which states: By signing this report, I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the report is true, complete, and accurate, and the expenditures, disbursements and cash receipts are for the purposes and objectives set forth in the terms and conditions of the Federal award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent information, or the omission of any material fact, may subject me to criminal, civil or administrative penalties for fraud, false statements, false claims or otherwise. (U.S. Code Title 18, Section 1001 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812). PDE’s review did not detect that the expenditure report was not certified by an authorized subgrantee official. PDE did not follow their written operational guidelines which state that PDE should ensure that someone of authority is signing the report and that the expenditure report will not be processed without the signature. PDE management indicated that they monitor subrecipients and request backup documentation for expenditures listed in the requests for reimbursement; however, without subrecipient certifications only limited assurance of the allowability of the activities and costs for which the subrecipient was requesting reimbursement can be obtained. Finding 2023 – 009: (continued) Effect: Without appropriate certifications, PDE cannot be assured that subrecipient expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets. Further, the subrecipient noted in the condition above may have received unallowable cost reimbursements from the TANF program. PDE is not in compliance with federal regulations relating to required certifications, and a significant deficiency exists. If not corrected, the processing of expenditure reports without certifications could result in the reimbursement of unallowable costs and result in future grant awards being reduced. Recommendation: PDE should strengthen its procedures and controls to ensure that required certifications are obtained prior to passing funding through to subrecipients. Further, PDE should request that subgrantees resubmit any expenditure reports from which the required certifications were missing. Agency Response: PDE agrees with this finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
2023-004 Late Submission of and Discrepancies within Final Expenditure Reports Program Name/ Assistance Listing Number: 93. 959 Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Identification: Unknown Type of Finding: Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Reporting Criteria: According to 2 CFR §200.302, entities that receive federal awards must have accurate financial management systems that allow for the preparation of reports that reflect accurate, current, and complete disclosure of financial results. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.415(a) requires that financial reports must be based on the accounting records and accurately reflect the actual expenditures incurred. Furthermore, 2 CFR §200.328(b)(1) states that federal grant recipients are required to submit performance and financial reports within 90 days following the end of the grant period, unless an extension has been granted by the funding agency. Timely submission of these reports is essential to demonstrate compliance with grant terms and conditions. Condition: The auditor noted that certain expenditures in the final expenditures report submitted by the Organization exceeded the actual expenditures recorded in the general ledger and/or exceeded the grant budget. In addition, the auditor also noted that final reports were submitted to funding sources at least 5 months (150 days) after the end of the grant period. This suggests that Cleveland UMADAOP did not submit the reports within the required timeframe and may not have an effective process in place to track and meet reporting deadlines. Cause of Condition: The discrepancies appear to be the result of inadequate reconciliation processes between the general ledger and the financial reports. This may have been compounded by the misunderstanding of reporting requirements, leading to the inclusion of inaccurate figures in the final expenditures report. In addition, the late submission of final reports appears to result from the absence of a robust process for monitoring and tracking reporting deadlines. This may also indicate inadequate internal controls or insufficient staffing dedicated to managing grant compliance and reporting responsibilities. Effect: Reporting expenditures in excess of actual amounts may lead to non-compliance with federal grant requirements, and could result in questioned costs and potential disallowance of funds. Moreover, such inaccuracies undermine the reliability of financial reports and could impair the organization’s credibility with federal agencies and other stakeholders. In addition, failure to submit timely reports can lead to non-compliance with grant agreements, which may result in funding delays, penalties, or even the potential loss of future funding opportunities. Furthermore, late submissions may strain relationships with funding sources and damage the Organization’s reputation. Questioned Cost: $114,860 Recommendation: Cleveland UMADAOP should enhance its reconciliation procedures to ensure that reported expenditures accurately reflect actual amounts spent as recorded in the general ledger. Implementing a robust review process prior to the submission of final expenditure reports will help prevent discrepancies and ensure compliance with federal grant requirements. Additionally, the Organization should implement a formal process to track and monitor all reporting deadlines associated with its grants. This process could include a centralized calendar, regular reminders, and a designated individual or team responsible for ensuring that all reports are completed and submitted on time. Additionally, the Organization should consider conducting training for staff involved in grant management and financial reporting to reinforce the importance of adhering to reporting deadlines andcompliance to requirements. Description of the Nature and Extent of Issues Reported: We consider the following materiality for consideration of materialnoncompliance for the major program 93.959 at 5% of the totalawards expended amounting to $51,253. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding and will implement corrective action.
FA 2023-002 Strengthen Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $7,360 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $1,743,621 were expended and reported on the Crawford County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2023. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 25 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for one expenditure totaling $7,360 as this expenditure was not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendments within the Consolidated Application system, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $262,816 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned cost of $7,360 was identified for the expenditure not properly approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $1,133,086, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $31,731. Cause: Due to oversight, management was unaware that the expenditure was not approved on the GaDOE Consolidated Application. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-061 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2022 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, a pass-through entity must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with § 180.300. Verification methods are provided in § 180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (c) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (g) Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F of this part. (h) Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. (i) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 and in program regulations. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our understanding of the program, program staff were interviewed regarding the existence of subrecipients. None of the staff interviewed identified any transactions involving subrecipients. However, in our testing of internal controls and compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles requirement, transactions were selected to assess compliance with this requirement. Upon receiving documentation from a contractor, we realized that the transactions with this supplier were in the capacity of a subrecipient. In addition, the SEFA submitted by the PRDF does not identify any transaction under a subrecipient related to this program. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. We examined four (4) vouchers related to these services; the contract, proposal and invoices do not indicate information related to subrecipients. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. The staff in charge of administering TANF funds were unaware of the factors required to properly identify subrecipient transactions. The total expenditure reflected in the database related to subrecipient activities totaled $686,052.17 for the audited fiscal year. After providing the requirements for a subrecipient, staff were interviewed again to verify whether other providers met the subrecipient requirements, but no other entities were identified. From our testing, we identified no other subrecipients. Although, in the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, all expenditures related to preventive services were included as pass-through expenditures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The staff in charge of administering the program were unaware of the factors that determine whether a contractor is a subrecipient or a contractor. ADSEF has not established an adequate procedures manual that demonstrates compliance with all requirements for subrecipient activities. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not have internal controls related to the identification, management, and reporting of subrecipient activities. This situation prevents compliance with all compliance requirements related to subrecipient monitoring. This situation prevented the proper presentation of Federal expenditures incurred under this program in the SEFA or other financial reports required by Federal agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS The PRDF must provide training to ADSEF personnel on the requirements and regulations related to subrecipient monitoring. We recommend that management establish internal controls and compliance measures that allow for the identification, reporting, and monitoring of subrecipient activities.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
FINDING NO: 2023-096 (Repeat finding 2022-071) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: US Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.019 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $248,779 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 - Internal controls states in part, “The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.” 2 CFR § 200.332 - Requirements for pass-through entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a passthrough entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. … .” The Department of the Treasury Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 10 from January 15, 2021 states in part, “The CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, & Economic Security Act] Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that— 1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19); 2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and 3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2021. … This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example, provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase (or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund. Condition and Context: Per the GAAP Package Z - Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the State of Oklahoma reported $249,660.69 in CRF cash basis expenditures reimbursed to subrecipients by the CARES FORWARD1 team. We tested all five (5) reimbursement transactions for one subrecipient and noted the following: • One (20%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $4,594.40 contained no supporting documentation. • Four (80%) of the five (5) transactions totaling $245,066.29 contained costs totaling $244,184.29 that were incurred by the subrecipient after 12/31/2021 (covered period). The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team failed to perform an adequate review to ensure the subrecipient purchased (or reimbursed a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period and occurs within the covered period. Further, we noted Award documents provided to the subrecipient did not include the terms and conditions of the subaward. Also, the CARES FORWARD team did not perform a risk assessment on subrecipients receiving continued funding during SFY 2023. Lastly, while performing Single Audit monitoring testwork on three (3) subrecipients for SFY 2022, we determined that the State of Oklahoma - CARES FORWARD team did not perform tracking on two (2) of the subrecipients that received CRF funds. For the two subrecipients, there is no documentation to show that OMES received the SFY 2022 Single Audit, evaluated whether the subrecipient took corrective action on all significant developments that affect the subaward, and issued a management decision for any audit findings pertaining to the federal award. Cause: Adequate controls were not in place to ensure the monitoring process utilized by the CARES FORWARD team considered the Department of Treasury guidance when determining whether the financial activities of the subrecipients complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award prior to payment. Also, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD2 team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient award documentation included the terms and conditions of the subaward in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Further, the State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are assessed for risk in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Lastly, the State of Oklahoma – CARES Forward team did not have sufficient internal controls in place to ensure subrecipients are monitored for a Single Audit in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332. Effect: These deficiencies resulted in questioned costs of $248,779 goods or services for which receipt both was needed and occurred within the covered period. The $248,779 in questioned costs related to subrecipient expenses is included in Finding 2023-108 (Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance) as well, as the same transactions failed to meet requirements under all these compliance areas. The amount should not be considered cumulative. The State of Oklahoma – CARES FORWARD team did not comply with 2 CFR § 200.332. Recommendation: We recommend for future grants that the State of Oklahoma strengthen their control process related to subrecipients to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Brandy Manek Anticipated Completion Date: September 2022 Corrective Action Planned: The State of Oklahoma/Office of Management and Enterprise Services partially agrees with this finding. See corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: The State Auditor & Inspector’s Office questioned $248,779 to one subrecipient for SFY 2023 based on the expenditures for goods or services both needing to be within the covered period and occurring within the covered period. Therefore, since the subrecipient payments were after the covered period (December 31, 2021), the finding will stand. Further, since there was not a risk assessment performed during the year and the Single Audit tracking was not performed for SFY 2022 for 2 of the 3 subrecipients, the finding will stand.
Finding No. 2022-031 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury AL Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Award No.: COVID-19 Area: Subrecipient Monitoring Questioned Costs: $61,003,095 Criteria: Per the U.S. Treasury Interim and Final Rules, the U.S. Treasury is aligning the definition of subrecipient in the final rule with the definition of subrecipient in the Uniform Guidance, wherein, subrecipients are entities that receive a subaward from a recipient to carry out a program or project on behalf of the recipient with the recipient’s Federal award funding but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such award. The recipient remains responsible for monitoring and overseeing the subrecipient’s use of Fiscal Recovery Funds and other activities related to the award to ensure that the subrecipient complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements and the terms and conditions of the award. Recipients also remain responsible for reporting to Treasury on their subrecipients’ use of payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds for the duration of the award. Accordingly, in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332, pass-through entity (PTE) must: 1. Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A PTE must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A PTE must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. One of the required information includes: (1) Federal award identification: (i) Subrecipient’s unique entity identifier; (ii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iii) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (iv) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (v) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (vi) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the PTE, including the current financial obligation; (vii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the PTE, including the current financial obligation; and (viii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement. (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; (4) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (5) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. 2. Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a PTE should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). 3. Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The PTE is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a PTE must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the PTE as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the PTE is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the PTE may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 4. Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F. 5. Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. Further, in accordance with 31 CFR § 19.300, prior to entering into subawards with award funds, recipients must verify that such subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving federal funds. Condition: 1. Of seventeen subrecipients tested, aggregating $60,403,095 of a total population of $61,003,095, the following were noted: a. For seventeen (or 100%), documentations of the risk assessments performed and verification as to whether the subrecipients are not suspended or debarred were not provided. b. For two (or 12%), subrecipient agreements were not provided. No questioned costs are presented as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. c. For two (or 12%), subrecipients’ unique entity identifiers, the federal award identification numbers (FAIN), amounts of federal funds obligated by this action by the PTE to the subrecipients, total amount of federal funds obligated to the subrecipients by the PTE, including the current financial obligations and the appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subawards, were not included in the subrecipient agreements. No questioned costs are presented as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. d. For ten (or 59%), subawards were supported with financial assistance request letters from the subrecipients and not with a subaward agreement that CNMI utilizes for other subawards. Accordingly, other than the date of request, amount requested and purpose of the financial assistance, all other required subaward information pursuant to 2 CFR § 200.332, were not indicated. No questioned costs as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. e. For one (or 6%), no monitoring procedures were performed. No questioned cost is presented as the amount is questioned at Condition 1a. 2. Of sixteen subrecipient monitoring procedure requirements tested, aggregating $58,537,352 of a total population of $58,537,352, for sixteen (or 100%), documentation on monitoring procedures performed were not provided. In addition, documentation of preventive measures taken to mitigate risk from subrecipients that showed elevated risk factors or for identified unallowable activities were not documented and no verification as to whether the subrecipients are subject to the audit requirements. 3. Of sixty monitoring procedure requirements tested at the invoice/disbursement level, aggregating $58,438,922 of a total population of $61,003,095, the following were noted: a. For six (or 10%), review and approval of invoices and/or payments to ensure that subrecipients used the subaward for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subawards, were not evident. No questioned costs are presented as expenditures pertain to subawards that were questioned at Condition 1a for Award Numbers CNMI22037 and COVID-19 Care Force Project. b. For twenty-four (or 40%), either the check payments and/or invoices or equivalent documentations were not provided; accordingly, the CNMI was not able to substantiate that monitoring procedures were performed to ensure that subrecipients used the subaward for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subawards. No questioned costs are presented as expenditures pertain to subawards that were questioned at Condition 1a for Award Numbers NMPMG, CNMI 22037, CNMI22044 and COVID-19 Care Force Project and at Condition 2 for Award Reference Number 5302. Cause: The CNMI does not have approved/adopted written subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. In addition, the CNMI failed to enforce compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements and lacks monitoring controls over the following: 1. Monitoring activities of a subrecipient to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; 2. Adequate documentation and systematic filing of relevant documentation supporting program costs. In addition, for award number CNMI22044, the Entity’s management has determined that it should be classified as a contractor under the agreement as the Entity’s role is to promote the program within the CNMI, develop a marketing and promotional campaign and disburse the award to the recipients identified by the CNMI. The Entity was not involved in reviewing and deciding which grant applicant is eligible to receive the grant. CNMI’s role in the review of grant applications and eligibility determination may have caused confusion as to whether the Entity that received the funds is a subrecipient or a contractor. As of the auditor’s report date, the CNMI and the Entity have yet to conclude whether the Entity received the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor. Effect: The CNMI is in noncompliance with applicable subrecipient monitoring requirements and questioned costs of $61,003,095 for Condition 1. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Finding No. 2021-033 Recommendation: We recommend the CNMI establish approved/adopted written subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures and an approved template that includes all required clauses needed for subrecipient agreements. In addition, CNMI should implement monitoring internal control procedures over the following: 1. Preventive measures taken to mitigate risk from subrecipients that showed elevated risk factors or for identified unallowable activities are adequately documented. Recommendation, continued: 2. Verification that subrecipients are audited as required by subpart F; 3. Monitoring activities of a subrecipient to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; 4. Provide subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters, including thorough explanation of their role as subrecipients; 5. Adequate documentation and systematic filing of relevant documentation to support program costs. Views of Responsible Officials: Conditions 1 to 3 - The Department of Finance agrees with this finding. The Department has recently adopted and approved (August 2025) a Subrecipient Monitoring Policy and Procedures which specifically focused on the implementation of 2 CFR 200.331. Refer to CNMI’s Corrective Action Plan for additional information.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Equipment Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over equipment and real property management as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE was responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,979,815.88 were expended and reported on the Ben Hill County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2021. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.313(d)(1) state, “Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property.” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER programs within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: The following deficiencies were noted when reviewing the ESSER program: • 12 pieces of equipment with costs totaling $347,619.04, which were purchased with program funds, were not included on the federal program’s equipment listing. • The related expenditures for seven equipment additions with costs totaling $156,067.46 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Further, the expenditures were not submitted for approval on an amended budget as of the end of audit fieldwork. Cause: Issues were a result of inadequate controls and review procedures over equipment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to maintain a complete and accurate equipment listing and reconcile results of the physical inventory performed to the property records exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of equipment and/or federal funds. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages. Recommendation: The School District should develop and maintain an equipment listing that reflects all required information, including a description, an identifying number, the source of funding, the title holder, the acquisition date, the cost, the percentage of federal participation in the project costs, the location, the use and condition, and any ultimate disposal data for each piece of equipment. Management should also implement controls to ensure that a complete physical inventory of equipment is performed, and the results are reconciled back to the equipment listing at least once every two years. In addition, the School District should also revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Management should also develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Equipment Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over equipment and real property management as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE was responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,979,815.88 were expended and reported on the Ben Hill County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2021. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.313(d)(1) state, “Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property.” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER programs within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: The following deficiencies were noted when reviewing the ESSER program: • 12 pieces of equipment with costs totaling $347,619.04, which were purchased with program funds, were not included on the federal program’s equipment listing. • The related expenditures for seven equipment additions with costs totaling $156,067.46 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Further, the expenditures were not submitted for approval on an amended budget as of the end of audit fieldwork. Cause: Issues were a result of inadequate controls and review procedures over equipment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to maintain a complete and accurate equipment listing and reconcile results of the physical inventory performed to the property records exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of equipment and/or federal funds. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages. Recommendation: The School District should develop and maintain an equipment listing that reflects all required information, including a description, an identifying number, the source of funding, the title holder, the acquisition date, the cost, the percentage of federal participation in the project costs, the location, the use and condition, and any ultimate disposal data for each piece of equipment. Management should also implement controls to ensure that a complete physical inventory of equipment is performed, and the results are reconciled back to the equipment listing at least once every two years. In addition, the School District should also revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Management should also develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021), Questioned Costs: $31,131 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $790,945 were expended and reported on the Calhoun County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 25 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant expenditures were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for nine expenditures totaling $31,131 as these expenditures were not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendments within the Consolidated Application system as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,677 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $10,136 were identified for expenditures not properly approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $201,966, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $139,475. In addition, known questioned costs identified for unapproved payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $20,995; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $31,131 and $139,475, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, the School District believed that the Consolidated Application included the unallowable items purchased; however, the description reflected on the Consolidated Application did not agree to the items purchased. In addition, management was unaware that Consolidated Application was not approved by the GaDOE. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021), Questioned Costs: $31,131 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $790,945 were expended and reported on the Calhoun County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 25 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant expenditures were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for nine expenditures totaling $31,131 as these expenditures were not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendments within the Consolidated Application system as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,677 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $10,136 were identified for expenditures not properly approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $201,966, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $139,475. In addition, known questioned costs identified for unapproved payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $20,995; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $31,131 and $139,475, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, the School District believed that the Consolidated Application included the unallowable items purchased; however, the description reflected on the Consolidated Application did not agree to the items purchased. In addition, management was unaware that Consolidated Application was not approved by the GaDOE. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021), Questioned Costs: $31,131 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $790,945 were expended and reported on the Calhoun County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Furthermore, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 25 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant expenditures were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that prior approval was not obtained from GaDOE for nine expenditures totaling $31,131 as these expenditures were not reflected in the approved budget or subsequent amendments within the Consolidated Application system as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,677 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $10,136 were identified for expenditures not properly approved through the Consolidated Application process. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $201,966, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $139,475. In addition, known questioned costs identified for unapproved payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $20,995; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $31,131 and $139,475, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, the School District believed that the Consolidated Application included the unallowable items purchased; however, the description reflected on the Consolidated Application did not agree to the items purchased. In addition, management was unaware that Consolidated Application was not approved by the GaDOE. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-02 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Equipment and Real Property Management Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021), S425Q210012 (Year 2021) Questioned Costs: $192,004.45 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures and equipment as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $3,287,369.95 were expended and reported on the Telfair County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 202.403 – Reasonable Costs state that “a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm’s-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award… (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award’s cost.” Furthermore, as a condition of receiving federal subawards from the GaDOE, LEAs are required to prepare an annual budget that reflects how funding will be expended. This budget is submitted in the Consolidated Application system and is required to be reviewed and approved by the GaDOE program and grants management prior to expending federal program funds. LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Lastly, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.313 - Equipment state that "equipment must be used by the non-Federal entity in the program or project for which it was acquired as long as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by the Federal award, and the non-Federal entity must not encumber the property without prior approval of the Federal awarding agency." Condition: A sample of 23 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, six individually significant expenditures were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Furthermore, all equipment items purchased during the period under review were selected for testing to ensure approval was obtained from GaDOE prior to the purchase of the equipment. The following deficiencies were noted: • Two randomly selected expenditures totaling $7,678.24 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • Two individually significant items totaling $99,628.33 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • The purchase of two servers totaling $35,022.88 was not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • Bonuses totaling $43,900.00 were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $142,102.78 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $7,678.24 were identified. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $279,079.35, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $15,079.50. In addition, known questioned costs identified for unallowable/undocumented payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $184,326.21; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $192,004.45 and $199,405.71, respectively. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the bonuses were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. In discussing the expenditures not approved on the Consolidated Application, they stated that the School District management did not update the ESSER Consolidated Application system prior to expending the funds for a different purpose. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District’s purchasing and employee compensation policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: The School District does not agree with this finding. The School District feels this was an isolated incident due to the unique circumstances of this atypical grant. All documentation required by the vendors used was provided. The School District believes GaDOE guidelines and district Board approved procedures were followed on all expenditures except for a portion of the bonuses referenced. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: School District personnel state that the School District “believes GaDOE guidelines and district Board approved procedures were followed”. While the expenditures may be allowable in nature, the School District is still required to get approval from GaDOE to be allowable per the Uniform Guidance. School Districts are expected and required to comply with federal regulations associated with the federal program. When each federal program budget is submitted to GaDOE, School District management signs assurances certifying that “each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, internal controls in the procurement process for goods and services in accordance with Georgia’s Financial Management for Georgia LUAS Manual.” As noted previously, the School District did follow appropriate procurement policies and procedures. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
FA 2022-02 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Equipment and Real Property Management Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021), S425Q210012 (Year 2021) Questioned Costs: $192,004.45 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures and equipment as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $3,287,369.95 were expended and reported on the Telfair County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 202.403 – Reasonable Costs state that “a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to: (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm’s-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award… (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award’s cost.” Furthermore, as a condition of receiving federal subawards from the GaDOE, LEAs are required to prepare an annual budget that reflects how funding will be expended. This budget is submitted in the Consolidated Application system and is required to be reviewed and approved by the GaDOE program and grants management prior to expending federal program funds. LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Lastly, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.313 - Equipment state that "equipment must be used by the non-Federal entity in the program or project for which it was acquired as long as needed, whether or not the project or program continues to be supported by the Federal award, and the non-Federal entity must not encumber the property without prior approval of the Federal awarding agency." Condition: A sample of 23 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, six individually significant expenditures were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Furthermore, all equipment items purchased during the period under review were selected for testing to ensure approval was obtained from GaDOE prior to the purchase of the equipment. The following deficiencies were noted: • Two randomly selected expenditures totaling $7,678.24 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • Two individually significant items totaling $99,628.33 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • The purchase of two servers totaling $35,022.88 was not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. • Bonuses totaling $43,900.00 were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $142,102.78 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $7,678.24 were identified. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $279,079.35, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $15,079.50. In addition, known questioned costs identified for unallowable/undocumented payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $184,326.21; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $192,004.45 and $199,405.71, respectively. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the bonuses were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. In discussing the expenditures not approved on the Consolidated Application, they stated that the School District management did not update the ESSER Consolidated Application system prior to expending the funds for a different purpose. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District’s purchasing and employee compensation policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: The School District does not agree with this finding. The School District feels this was an isolated incident due to the unique circumstances of this atypical grant. All documentation required by the vendors used was provided. The School District believes GaDOE guidelines and district Board approved procedures were followed on all expenditures except for a portion of the bonuses referenced. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: School District personnel state that the School District “believes GaDOE guidelines and district Board approved procedures were followed”. While the expenditures may be allowable in nature, the School District is still required to get approval from GaDOE to be allowable per the Uniform Guidance. School Districts are expected and required to comply with federal regulations associated with the federal program. When each federal program budget is submitted to GaDOE, School District management signs assurances certifying that “each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, internal controls in the procurement process for goods and services in accordance with Georgia’s Financial Management for Georgia LUAS Manual.” As noted previously, the School District did follow appropriate procurement policies and procedures. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $187,246 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program (Assistance Listing Number 84.425D) revealed that the School District?s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE was responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $4,249,034 were expended and reported on the Bryan County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period, (g) Be adequately documented?? Lastly, as a condition of receiving federal subawards from the GaDOE, LEAs are required to prepare an annual budget that reflects how funding will be expended. This budget is submitted in the Consolidated Application system and is required to be reviewed and approved by the GaDOE program and grants management prior to expending federal program funds. LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...? Condition: A sample of 45 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Nine individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that one expenditure totaling $187,246 was not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Further, the expenditure was ineligible for reimbursement under the ESSER program as the expenditure had previously been approved for funding through the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program. Upon further review, it was noted that reimbursement was requested and received from both the ESSER program and the ECF program after year-end and a refund of such funding had not been processed for either of the programs as of the end of audit fieldwork. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $187,246 were identified for expenditures that were not reflected within the approved project budget for the ESSER program and were approved for reimbursement under another federal program. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that the School District management did not update the ESSER Consolidated Application system prior to expending the funds. Additionally, the Finance Department thought the expenditures were not allowable under the Emergency Connectivity Fund program; therefore, they charged the expenditures to the ESSER program. However, the Director of the Emergency Connectivity Fund Program also requested reimbursement for the expenditures. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate documentation, including an approved budget, exists to support the allowability of payments from the ESSER fund may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE should require the School District to return funds associated with the unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved through the Consolidated Application process prior to the expending of federal program funds. Additionally, the School District should initiate a refund in the amount of $187,246 to GaDOE. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education Assistance Listing Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $187,246 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program (Assistance Listing Number 84.425D) revealed that the School District?s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable. Background Information: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE was responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $4,249,034 were expended and reported on the Bryan County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet the cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period, (g) Be adequately documented?? Lastly, as a condition of receiving federal subawards from the GaDOE, LEAs are required to prepare an annual budget that reflects how funding will be expended. This budget is submitted in the Consolidated Application system and is required to be reviewed and approved by the GaDOE program and grants management prior to expending federal program funds. LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...? Condition: A sample of 45 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Nine individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that one expenditure totaling $187,246 was not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Further, the expenditure was ineligible for reimbursement under the ESSER program as the expenditure had previously been approved for funding through the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) program. Upon further review, it was noted that reimbursement was requested and received from both the ESSER program and the ECF program after year-end and a refund of such funding had not been processed for either of the programs as of the end of audit fieldwork. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $187,246 were identified for expenditures that were not reflected within the approved project budget for the ESSER program and were approved for reimbursement under another federal program. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that the School District management did not update the ESSER Consolidated Application system prior to expending the funds. Additionally, the Finance Department thought the expenditures were not allowable under the Emergency Connectivity Fund program; therefore, they charged the expenditures to the ESSER program. However, the Director of the Emergency Connectivity Fund Program also requested reimbursement for the expenditures. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate documentation, including an approved budget, exists to support the allowability of payments from the ESSER fund may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE should require the School District to return funds associated with the unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved through the Consolidated Application process prior to the expending of federal program funds. Additionally, the School District should initiate a refund in the amount of $187,246 to GaDOE. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed/Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $62,747.69 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $199,433,680.30 were expended and reported on the DeKalb County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? To assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program?s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets?? Condition: A sample of 60 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Four individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Upon completing this testing, it was noted that three individually significant items totaling $48,037.69 and two randomly selected expenditures totaling $14,710.00 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $2,037,733.28 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $14,710.00 were identified. Using the total nonpersonal services expenditure population of $47,278,482.26, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $798,116.60. In addition, known questioned costs identified for improper payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $48,037.69; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $62,747.69 and $846,154.29, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that inadequate staffing levels led to the School District?s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures, such as a review by appropriate personnel to ensure compliance with the Consolidated Application prior to the expenditure of federal funds. Additionally, the existence of multiple programs and associated Consolidated Applications led to the School District?s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the expenditure was approved on the specific Consolidated Application that funded the expenditure. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Budgetary Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed/Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $62,747.69 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $199,433,680.30 were expended and reported on the DeKalb County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? To assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program?s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets?? Condition: A sample of 60 nonpersonal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Four individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Upon completing this testing, it was noted that three individually significant items totaling $48,037.69 and two randomly selected expenditures totaling $14,710.00 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $2,037,733.28 in nonpersonal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $14,710.00 were identified. Using the total nonpersonal services expenditure population of $47,278,482.26, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $798,116.60. In addition, known questioned costs identified for improper payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $48,037.69; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $62,747.69 and $846,154.29, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that inadequate staffing levels led to the School District?s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures, such as a review by appropriate personnel to ensure compliance with the Consolidated Application prior to the expenditure of federal funds. Additionally, the existence of multiple programs and associated Consolidated Applications led to the School District?s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the expenditure was approved on the specific Consolidated Application that funded the expenditure. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 84.033, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Work Study and 84.268, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Direct Student Loans Finding Type - Material weakness Repeat Finding - Yes - 2021-005 Criteria - The Seminary is required to maintain documentation of the initiation and approval by the designated individual at the Seminary that the cash drawdowns are certified in accordance with 2 CFR 200.415. Condition - Of the two drawdowns selected in our testing, the Seminary did not retain documentation to support one of the samples that the drawdown request was initiated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate individuals. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - For all draws in the fiscal year that occurred prior to January 2022, the Seminary was relying solely on email communication between the student financial aid director and the bursar to support the requirements. The documentation does not meet the requirements to support that the Seminary is in compliance with the required regulations. Cause and Effect - The lack of maintaining records of the review and approval of the cash management process could lead to a lack of segregation of duties, as well as potential misstatement of funds, including funds being drawn on the incorrect grant, funds used for an unallowable cost, or funds recorded at an incorrect amount. Recommendation - We recommend the Seminary implement procedures and controls to ensure that drawdown documentation is maintained supporting that independent review was performed for each drawdown, including supporting documentation of approval of the cash drawdown. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - The financial aid director is implementing a procedure that will involve an email with supporting documentation for the drawdown requests sent to the CFO or VP of enrollment for review. The individual will sign a statement indicating the information has been reviewed and is accurate and the funds have been approved for drawdown. That email will then be forwarded to the controller to draw down the funds in G5. These requests/approvals will be documented in our internal office drawdown request folder.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 84.033, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Work Study and 84.268, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Direct Student Loans Finding Type - Material weakness Repeat Finding - Yes - 2021-005 Criteria - The Seminary is required to maintain documentation of the initiation and approval by the designated individual at the Seminary that the cash drawdowns are certified in accordance with 2 CFR 200.415. Condition - Of the two drawdowns selected in our testing, the Seminary did not retain documentation to support one of the samples that the drawdown request was initiated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate individuals. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - For all draws in the fiscal year that occurred prior to January 2022, the Seminary was relying solely on email communication between the student financial aid director and the bursar to support the requirements. The documentation does not meet the requirements to support that the Seminary is in compliance with the required regulations. Cause and Effect - The lack of maintaining records of the review and approval of the cash management process could lead to a lack of segregation of duties, as well as potential misstatement of funds, including funds being drawn on the incorrect grant, funds used for an unallowable cost, or funds recorded at an incorrect amount. Recommendation - We recommend the Seminary implement procedures and controls to ensure that drawdown documentation is maintained supporting that independent review was performed for each drawdown, including supporting documentation of approval of the cash drawdown. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - The financial aid director is implementing a procedure that will involve an email with supporting documentation for the drawdown requests sent to the CFO or VP of enrollment for review. The individual will sign a statement indicating the information has been reviewed and is accurate and the funds have been approved for drawdown. That email will then be forwarded to the controller to draw down the funds in G5. These requests/approvals will be documented in our internal office drawdown request folder.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 84.033, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Work Study and 84.268, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Direct Student Loans Finding Type - Material weakness Repeat Finding - Yes - 2021-005 Criteria - The Seminary is required to maintain documentation of the initiation and approval by the designated individual at the Seminary that the cash drawdowns are certified in accordance with 2 CFR 200.415. Condition - Of the two drawdowns selected in our testing, the Seminary did not retain documentation to support one of the samples that the drawdown request was initiated, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate individuals. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - For all draws in the fiscal year that occurred prior to January 2022, the Seminary was relying solely on email communication between the student financial aid director and the bursar to support the requirements. The documentation does not meet the requirements to support that the Seminary is in compliance with the required regulations. Cause and Effect - The lack of maintaining records of the review and approval of the cash management process could lead to a lack of segregation of duties, as well as potential misstatement of funds, including funds being drawn on the incorrect grant, funds used for an unallowable cost, or funds recorded at an incorrect amount. Recommendation - We recommend the Seminary implement procedures and controls to ensure that drawdown documentation is maintained supporting that independent review was performed for each drawdown, including supporting documentation of approval of the cash drawdown. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - The financial aid director is implementing a procedure that will involve an email with supporting documentation for the drawdown requests sent to the CFO or VP of enrollment for review. The individual will sign a statement indicating the information has been reviewed and is accurate and the funds have been approved for drawdown. That email will then be forwarded to the controller to draw down the funds in G5. These requests/approvals will be documented in our internal office drawdown request folder.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $16,384 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,438,975.58 were expended and reported on the Banks County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? To assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program?s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...? Condition: A sample of 36 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented, and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that four expenditures totaling $16,384 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $417,627 in ESSER program expenditures, known questioned costs of $3,384 were identified. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $1,668,399, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $13,518. In addition, known questioned costs identified for improper payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $13,000; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $16,384 and $26,518, respectively. Cause: The School District did not have effective internal control procedures in place around the ESSER program to ensure that all expenditures were compliant with applicable policies and regulations. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $16,384 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,438,975.58 were expended and reported on the Banks County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? To assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program?s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...? Condition: A sample of 36 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented, and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that four expenditures totaling $16,384 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $417,627 in ESSER program expenditures, known questioned costs of $3,384 were identified. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $1,668,399, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $13,518. In addition, known questioned costs identified for improper payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $13,000; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $16,384 and $26,518, respectively. Cause: The School District did not have effective internal control procedures in place around the ESSER program to ensure that all expenditures were compliant with applicable policies and regulations. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $16,384 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed instances in which expenditures had not been properly approved by the pass-through entity. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,438,975.58 were expended and reported on the Banks County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? To assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program?s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 ? Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs ?to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...? Condition: A sample of 36 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented, and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that four expenditures totaling $16,384 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $417,627 in ESSER program expenditures, known questioned costs of $3,384 were identified. Using the population being sampled, which totaled $1,668,399, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $13,518. In addition, known questioned costs identified for improper payments associated with individually significant items tested totaled $13,000; therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments throughout the sample and individually significant items tested totaled $16,384 and $26,518, respectively. Cause: The School District did not have effective internal control procedures in place around the ESSER program to ensure that all expenditures were compliant with applicable policies and regulations. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information through the Consolidated Application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should revise current internal control procedures related to the ESSER program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process and deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $189,893 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,439,337 were expended and reported on the Dodge County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal Awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amounts of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity … (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 202.403 – Reasonable Costs state that “a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given costs, consideration must be given to: (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The constraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm’s-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award… (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. € Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award’s cost.” Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement standards state that “the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations… for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward…” Moreover, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA), manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide for specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets…” Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The following deficiencies were identified: • Testing revealed that expenditures totaling $173,893 were not appropriately approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application system. Further, the expenditures were not submitted for approval on an amended budget as of the end of audit fieldwork. • Testing revealed that a payment was made to the janitorial company utilized by the School District to provide “retention” bonuses to janitorial contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private janitorial company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the janitorial company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $16,000 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $189,893 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District’s and/or GaDOE’s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that they believed that any expenditures not previously approved on the Consolidated Application were still allowable provided that budget amendments were submitted and approved by the GaDOE prior to the end of the grant period. Additionally, they stated that they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to expending funds in excess of the stated contract rates. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved by the GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected in the associated contract and or/contract amendments, prior to the expending of federal program funds. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District's and GaDOE’s policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 – 84.425C – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425D – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425U – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 – 84.425W – American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund – Homeless Children and Youth Federal Award Numbers: S425C210012 (Year: 2021), S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) S425W210011 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $101,681 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were allowable for the program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,346,257 were expended and reported on the Brooks County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented… (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.77 state, “Period of performance means the time during which the non-Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award.” Further, to assist school districts in improving their financial management systems and associated compliance over federal programs, GaDOE published the Financial Management for Georgia Local Units of Administration (FMGLUA) manual. The FMGLUA manual requires that LEAs submit a budget as part of each federal program’s Consolidated Application process. The program budget reflects details regarding the manner in which each school district intends to expend the program funds. The Consolidated Application, including the budget, for each program must be reviewed and approved by GaDOE personnel before the LEA is authorized to expend program funds. Amendments to the budget are to be submitted to and approved by GaDOE when a school district intends to spend funds in a manner not initially reported. Lastly, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program within the Consolidated Application system. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets...” Condition: A sample of 60 non-personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. In addition, seven individually significant items were selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that subscription charges related to learning software were prepaid for a five-year period. Because the period of performance for this funding ends on September 30, 2024 and the liquidation period for the program ends 120 days thereafter, it was determined that $85,681 of these expenditures were unallowable as the amounts were incurred after the period of performance and School District personnel did not maintain appropriate documentation to evidence its analysis leading to the decision to enter into the multi-year contract as required by ED. Additionally, a sample of 60 personal services expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Two individually significant items were also selected for testing. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. It was noted that eight employees were paid a $2,000 bonus, which totaled $16,000, that was not approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process, as required. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $444,121 in personal services expenditures, known questioned costs of $16,000 were identified. Using the total personal services expenditures population of $1,560,088, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $56,204. In addition, known questioned costs of $85,681 were also identified for non-personal services expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample and were not incurred during the appropriate period. Therefore, the known and likely questioned costs identified for all unallowable payments totaled $101,681 and $56,204, respectively. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with management, they stated that unallowable bonuses paid were due to human error since they were intended to be paid from QBE funds in Fund 100. In addition, management was unaware of the documentation requirements for the multi-year service agreements that extend beyond the period of performance. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Additionally, failure to verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations, including reviewing approved budgets prior to the expenditure of federal program funds and ensuring that expenditures are incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and within the appropriate period of performance, may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved through the Consolidated Application process, fall within the respective federal program’s period of performance, and are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. Further, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.