(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
(2024-041) Title: Internal control over monitoring of employee classification and compensation needs improvement Prior Year Findings: See schedule of Findings and Questioned costs for chart/table State Department: Administrative and Financial Services State Bureau: Human Resources Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Labor U.S. Department of Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Title: Fish and Wildlife Cluster Unemployment Insurance (UI) (COVID-19) Special Education Cluster (IDEA) (COVID-19) Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States CCDF Cluster (COVID-19) Assistance Listing Number: 15.605, 15.611, 15.626; 17.225; 84.027, 84.173; 84.126; 93.489, 93.575, 93.596 Federal Award Identification Number: See E-77 to E-78 Compliance Area: Allowable costs/cost principles Type of Finding: Significant deficiency Questioned Costs: None Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303; 2 CFR 200.430; 5 MRSA 7061 The Department must establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the Department is managing awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of awards. Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that personal services are rendered during the period of performance under the Federal award, total compensation is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-Federal entity, and follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules or written policies. 5 MRSA 7061 states that the (Bureau of Human Resources (BHR)) director shall record the duties and responsibilities of all positions in State service and establish classes for these positions. The procedure shall provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. Condition: BHR maintains the job classification specifications and related compensation plan of State employees. A specific salary specification and grade is assigned based on the duties and responsibilities referenced in the job classification specification; this represents reasonable compensation for the services rendered for all positions that inhabit a given job classification specification. The assigned salary grade provides a basis for the allowability of compensation costs charged to Federal awards by documenting the reasonableness of compensation for services rendered by State employees, and that the position appointments under the job classification specification were made and maintained in accordance with State statute. While BHR relies on data collected from State agencies to implement procedures regarding the classification plan, BHR retains ultimate oversight responsibility. BHR is the only agency with the authority to modify the classification plan. According to 5 MRSA 7061, BHR must provide for periodic updating of job descriptions at least every five years to accurately reflect current duties and responsibilities of each job classification. The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) tested 19 job classification specifications for compliance with 5 MRSA 7061. BHR could not provide documentation for 14 of the 19 job classification specifications tested to support that they were updated within five years as required by 5 MRSA 7061. Additionally, BHR’s current tracking mechanism does not effectively identify the dates of the last review and next scheduled review, thus hindering compliance with the statutory five-year cycle. OSA selected a non-statistical random sample. Context: • During fiscal year 2024, approximately $139 million in payroll expenditures were charged to Federal grants. This represents approximately ten percent of fiscal year 2024 Statewide payroll expenditures, which totaled $1.3 billion. • BHR was responsible for managing approximately 1,200 job classification specifications in fiscal year 2024. Cause: • Lack of resources • Lack of adequate policies and procedures • Lack of supervisory oversight Effect: State employee job classification and compensation may not accurately reflect the current duties and responsibilities of each position. Without documented evidence that review activities are occurring, BHR cannot ensure that the decisions involving the classification and compensation plan of all State employee positions are properly supported by documentation that accurately reflects the current duties and responsibilities of each position. As a result, this may lead to noncompliance with Federal and State regulations. Recommendation: We recommend that the Department: • enhance oversight regarding the maintenance of the State classification and compensation plan in accordance with State statute; • implement policies and procedures to ensure updates or reviews of the State classification and compensation plan at the job classification specification level are adequately documented; and • implement a tracking mechanism to accurately monitor the dates of past reviews and schedule forthcoming reviews to aid in adherence to the statutory requirement. Corrective Action Plan: See F-19 Management’s Response: The Department disagrees with this finding. The procedure referenced in 5 M.R.S. Sec. 7061(4) is laid out in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. The Department complies with these written policies and procedures as required by federal and state law. Section 7061(4) was last updated in 2023, with an effective date in October 2023. Pursuant to the JSC on Appropriations, Section 7061(4)(A) requires a review every five years of the state compensation plan for each class or position in the classified service. The FJA process is not related to the compensation plan, however, it is administered under a separate internal control structure that is in place and operating effectively and ensures that the compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered. The requirement for review of each classification through the FJA process is covered under Section 7061(4)(C) and is required to be reviewed every 10 years. It is also important to note that the Department has conferred with the OAG, who determined that Section 7061(4)(C) is not retroactive, meaning the Department has another 8.5 years to complete a review of all classifications. Additionally, salary studies conducted on State employee wages have shown that the salary and wages of job classifications paid by the State are consistently lower than industry averages, removing the risk that the utilization of these salary schedules as a component of payroll costs will cause overcharges to Federal grants. Contact: Michael J. Dunn, Acting State Human Resources Officer, Bureau of Human Resources, DAFS, 207-287-4651 Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: OSA acknowledges BHR’s reference to 5 MRSA 7061(4), as amended in October 2023, and the procedures for the classification maintenance outlined in 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4. We also recognize the distinction BHR draws between the five-year statutory requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) for updating job descriptions and compensation plan components, and the ten-year classification plan review introduced under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). OSA’s review focused on BHR’s compliance with the five-year update requirement under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A). While the statute was amended in 2023, the requirement that job descriptions be updated at least every five years has been in place since 1987. The recent amendment did not create this requirement; it expanded BHR’s obligation by tying the update process to the compensation plan and introducing a separate ten-year comprehensive classification review under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C). These changes reflect an intent to strengthen oversight and modernize the State’s personnel system, not to delay or diminish BHR’s statutory responsibilities. To distinguish between BHR’s statutory responsibilities under 5 MRSA 7061(4)(A) and 5 MRSA 7061(4)(C), subsection (4)(A) requires periodic updating of job descriptions and the compensation plan at least every five years; this ensures that individual job classification specifications remain current and accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of State positions. In contrast, subsection (4)(C), introduced in 2023, requires a broader, ten-year comprehensive review of the classification plan as a whole. The two requirements serve different purposes and operate on separate cycles. The five-year review of individual classifications under subsection (4)(A) remains an ongoing statutory obligation, regardless of the addition of subsection (4)(C). While BHR references its internal procedures under 18-389 C.M.R. Ch. 4 as evidence of compliance, those procedures do not incorporate or reflect the statutory five-year update requirement in subsection (4)(A) or the ten-year update in subsection (4)(C). Furthermore, BHR could not provide documentation to support that 14 of the 19 job classifications tested by OSA had been reviewed or updated within the required timeframe. BHR does not have a comprehensive system to track classification review dates across the classification plan, making it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the statute or proactively manage updates. Internal policy may guide operations, but compliance is ultimately measured against the statutory requirements that govern those operations. The issues identified in audit testing also have implications for the compensation system. Under 5 MRSA 7065, the State’s compensation plan is developed based on the classification plan, with salary grades assigned to specific job classes according to documented duties and responsibilities. The classification plan is the foundational structure upon which compensation decisions are made. If job descriptions are outdated, or not periodically reviewed as required, positions may be misaligned with inappropriate salary grades, which may lead to pay that does not accurately reflect the nature or complexity of the work, including Federally-funded positions. Without a properly maintained classification system, the State cannot ensure that compensation, whether paid with State or Federal funds, is supported by a valid and compliant classification system. Under 2 CFR 200.430(a)(2), compensation for personal services is allowable under Federal awards only when it follows “an appointment made in accordance with the recipient’s…laws, rules, or written policies.” This Federal regulation places the burden of compliance on the State’s adherence to its own legal framework. The Federal government allows flexibility, but that flexibility hinges on the condition that the State follows its own laws; it is the minimum threshold for allowability requirements over personnel costs. Compliance with this law is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation and direct reflection of the expectations placed on the State by the Legislature and the Federal government. BHR asserts that State employee compensation is consistently below market rates and therefore poses no risk of overcharging Federal programs. Even if BHR’s current assertion that State salaries are below market is accepted, Federal guidance provides that reasonableness in amount is only one factor in determining allowability. Compensation must also follow lawful appointment processes and reflect compliance with State personnel laws. A claim of underpayment is not a compensating control to prevent noncompliance with required classification updates. The following statutes only serve to emphasize the responsibility placed upon BHR and the State Human Resources Officer. Under 5 MRSA 7036, the State Human Resources Officer is explicitly responsible for adopting rules for both classification and compensation plans (7036(I) and (J)), enforcing the Civil Service Law (7036(21)), and conducting both short-term and long-term planning for the State’s personnel system (7036(10)). The Officer is also responsible for responding to reclassification requests (7036(5)) and working closely with agencies on their personnel needs (7036(7)). These statutory responsibilities further confirm that maintaining accurate, up-to-date classification specifications is not discretionary. Moreover, failure to fulfill these legal duties has implications that underscore the purpose of a centralized human resources function. These conditions present a risk to the accessibility to public service employment, including potential delayed hiring decisions and diminished ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce. When classification structures are outdated and statutory mandates are not followed, BHR cannot deliver on its mission. We acknowledge BHR’s consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and its efforts to clarify its interpretation of the law; however, the condition observed during the audit period reflects a neutralization of internal controls and subsequent risk of noncompliance with statutory requirements that directly affect both classification and the allowability of personnel costs under Federal awards. The finding remains as stated. (State Number: 24-0111-01)
Criteria or Specific Requirement Federal regulation 2 CFR §200.430 states that “charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity and budget estimates determined before the services are performed alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards.” Entity policy states that “All employees who are paid in full or in part with federal funds, including employees whose salary is paid with state or local funds but is used to meet a required match or in-kind contribution to a federal program, shall document the amount of time they spend on grant activities (AR 3230)”. Condition In our review of employees charged to the Title 1 program we noted that two of the employees Semiannual Certification Form’s were certified before the period was over. Both Semiannual Certification Forms for the period 1/1/2024-6/14/2024 were certified on 2/23/2024. Potential Fiscal Impact $49,153 Cause The Organization’s internal control process over Federal Time Accounting was not properly designed Effect The Organization is out of compliance with 2 CFR §200.430. Context During the 2023-24 fiscal year, the Organization charged 2 employees to the Title 1 program for their salaries or extra duty performed. We reviewed time accounting documentation for both of the employees charged to the program. We identified findings in both of the employees that were reviewed. Repeat Finding No Recommendation Continue to provide training to all employees funded from federal programs and their supervisors to the requirements for federal time accounting under 2 CFR §200.430. Identify an individual responsible to monitor documentation to ensure it meets requirements. Implement a reconciliation between federal time accounting documentation and payroll records to ensure that appropriate adjustments are made to ensure payroll is charged to the correct programs. Views of Responsible Officials See Corrective Action Plan
2024-001 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Expenditures (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Program(s): Assistance Listing Number: 14.218 Federal Program Name: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: B-23-MC-06-0554 Assistance Listing Number: 14.871 Federal Program Name: Housing Voucher Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: CA120 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Total salaries charged to Federal awards (including extra service pay) are subject to the Standards of Documentation as described by 2 CFR §200.430(i). Per this section, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records; • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensating across all grant related and non-grant related activities (100% effort); • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives (for example, effort spent on multiple federal awards, spent on general/or administrative activities, vacation, sick leave, leave without pay, etc.); and Utilize an "after-the-fact" review of the employee’s actual hours worked during the reporting period for identifying and correcting significant changes (as defined by the organization’s written policies). Condition: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the fourteen (14) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Housing Voucher Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the thirteen (13) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Cause: Due to staff turnover, the City did not fully implement its adopted policies and procedures for relating payroll charges to grants. The City's efforts to address the prior year finding were not deemed sufficient, as it was unable to retrospectively perform reconciliations of actual hours worked for all employees. This limitation applied to both former employees who had left the City and certain current employees with time charges during parts of the fiscal year in supporting roles. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not fully comply with the program’s requirements for allowable costs. Questioned Costs: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster $53,625 Housing Voucher Cluster $19,099 Context: See condition above for the context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Yes. See prior year finding 2023-002. Recommendation: We recommend the City comply with federal regulation requiring that any employee funded by federal grant document the actual time they spend working on the grant’s objectives. Documentation must reflect “actual” time spent by employees on awards being charged. The City should develop and implement policies and procedures that ensure that employees’ compensation charged to federal programs reflect a contemporaneous or after-the-fact distribution of employees’ actual time and effort expended on federal programs. We also recommend the City enhance its internal controls over the payroll processes. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs.
2024-001 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Expenditures (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Program(s): Assistance Listing Number: 14.218 Federal Program Name: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: B-23-MC-06-0554 Assistance Listing Number: 14.871 Federal Program Name: Housing Voucher Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: CA120 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Total salaries charged to Federal awards (including extra service pay) are subject to the Standards of Documentation as described by 2 CFR §200.430(i). Per this section, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records; • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensating across all grant related and non-grant related activities (100% effort); • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives (for example, effort spent on multiple federal awards, spent on general/or administrative activities, vacation, sick leave, leave without pay, etc.); and Utilize an "after-the-fact" review of the employee’s actual hours worked during the reporting period for identifying and correcting significant changes (as defined by the organization’s written policies). Condition: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the fourteen (14) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Housing Voucher Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the thirteen (13) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Cause: Due to staff turnover, the City did not fully implement its adopted policies and procedures for relating payroll charges to grants. The City's efforts to address the prior year finding were not deemed sufficient, as it was unable to retrospectively perform reconciliations of actual hours worked for all employees. This limitation applied to both former employees who had left the City and certain current employees with time charges during parts of the fiscal year in supporting roles. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not fully comply with the program’s requirements for allowable costs. Questioned Costs: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster $53,625 Housing Voucher Cluster $19,099 Context: See condition above for the context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Yes. See prior year finding 2023-002. Recommendation: We recommend the City comply with federal regulation requiring that any employee funded by federal grant document the actual time they spend working on the grant’s objectives. Documentation must reflect “actual” time spent by employees on awards being charged. The City should develop and implement policies and procedures that ensure that employees’ compensation charged to federal programs reflect a contemporaneous or after-the-fact distribution of employees’ actual time and effort expended on federal programs. We also recommend the City enhance its internal controls over the payroll processes. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs.
2024-001 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Expenditures (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Program(s): Assistance Listing Number: 14.218 Federal Program Name: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: B-23-MC-06-0554 Assistance Listing Number: 14.871 Federal Program Name: Housing Voucher Cluster Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number(s) and Award Year: CA120 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Total salaries charged to Federal awards (including extra service pay) are subject to the Standards of Documentation as described by 2 CFR §200.430(i). Per this section, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: • Be incorporated into the organization’s official records; • Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensating across all grant related and non-grant related activities (100% effort); • Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives (for example, effort spent on multiple federal awards, spent on general/or administrative activities, vacation, sick leave, leave without pay, etc.); and Utilize an "after-the-fact" review of the employee’s actual hours worked during the reporting period for identifying and correcting significant changes (as defined by the organization’s written policies). Condition: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the fourteen (14) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Housing Voucher Cluster During the audit period, the City has required all Housing Department staff, including administrative support staff, to fill out project activity timesheets reflecting the actual hours worked on the program. The City performed reconciliation on the staff payroll charges to reflect actual hours worked. However, not all staff members have fully complied with this policy. Payroll costs for the thirteen (13) out of forty (40) payroll samples tested were allocated to programs based on percentages provided by management. These allocations were not supported by approved time samples or updated cost allocation plan, nor were they reconciled to actual time spent on the various programs. Employee timesheets did not record the actual labor efforts expended on the grant. Cause: Due to staff turnover, the City did not fully implement its adopted policies and procedures for relating payroll charges to grants. The City's efforts to address the prior year finding were not deemed sufficient, as it was unable to retrospectively perform reconciliations of actual hours worked for all employees. This limitation applied to both former employees who had left the City and certain current employees with time charges during parts of the fiscal year in supporting roles. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not fully comply with the program’s requirements for allowable costs. Questioned Costs: Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants Cluster $53,625 Housing Voucher Cluster $19,099 Context: See condition above for the context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Yes. See prior year finding 2023-002. Recommendation: We recommend the City comply with federal regulation requiring that any employee funded by federal grant document the actual time they spend working on the grant’s objectives. Documentation must reflect “actual” time spent by employees on awards being charged. The City should develop and implement policies and procedures that ensure that employees’ compensation charged to federal programs reflect a contemporaneous or after-the-fact distribution of employees’ actual time and effort expended on federal programs. We also recommend the City enhance its internal controls over the payroll processes. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs.
Finding 2024-002, Timesheet – Timekeeping (Assistance Listing 16.575 and 93.696) Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.430 requires that the distribution of salary and wages charged to federal awards be based on actual employee activity as reflected in personnel activity reports (timesheets), prepared after-the-fact, and includes the total activity for which employees were compensated. Condition and Context: The Agency’s current timesheet does not include the allocation of hours worked by program. Cause: Internal controls over the accurate distribution of hours on the timesheets were not operating effectively or designed properly. Effect: The timesheets do not support the allocation of time charged to the programs. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. Questioned costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency strengthen its policies and procedures for the timekeeping and distribution of the employees’ hours in accordance with the requirements of the federal programs.
Finding 2024-002, Timesheet – Timekeeping (Assistance Listing 16.575 and 93.696) Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.430 requires that the distribution of salary and wages charged to federal awards be based on actual employee activity as reflected in personnel activity reports (timesheets), prepared after-the-fact, and includes the total activity for which employees were compensated. Condition and Context: The Agency’s current timesheet does not include the allocation of hours worked by program. Cause: Internal controls over the accurate distribution of hours on the timesheets were not operating effectively or designed properly. Effect: The timesheets do not support the allocation of time charged to the programs. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. Questioned costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency strengthen its policies and procedures for the timekeeping and distribution of the employees’ hours in accordance with the requirements of the federal programs.
Finding 2024-002, Timesheet – Timekeeping (Assistance Listing 16.575 and 93.696) Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.430 requires that the distribution of salary and wages charged to federal awards be based on actual employee activity as reflected in personnel activity reports (timesheets), prepared after-the-fact, and includes the total activity for which employees were compensated. Condition and Context: The Agency’s current timesheet does not include the allocation of hours worked by program. Cause: Internal controls over the accurate distribution of hours on the timesheets were not operating effectively or designed properly. Effect: The timesheets do not support the allocation of time charged to the programs. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. Questioned costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency strengthen its policies and procedures for the timekeeping and distribution of the employees’ hours in accordance with the requirements of the federal programs.
Finding 2024-002, Timesheet – Timekeeping (Assistance Listing 16.575 and 93.696) Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.430 requires that the distribution of salary and wages charged to federal awards be based on actual employee activity as reflected in personnel activity reports (timesheets), prepared after-the-fact, and includes the total activity for which employees were compensated. Condition and Context: The Agency’s current timesheet does not include the allocation of hours worked by program. Cause: Internal controls over the accurate distribution of hours on the timesheets were not operating effectively or designed properly. Effect: The timesheets do not support the allocation of time charged to the programs. Identification as a repeat finding: Yes. Questioned costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Agency strengthen its policies and procedures for the timekeeping and distribution of the employees’ hours in accordance with the requirements of the federal programs.
Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number 17.259 – WIOA Youth Activities Program – U.S. Department of Labor. Pass-through Entity: New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. Award Number: 90535B / 90536B / 90537B / 90538B. Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: Requirements per section 2 CFR Part 200.430 of the Uniform Guidance state that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing for the year ended June 30, 2024, we noted a lack of detail for employee’s actual hours spent on different programs. Time and effort are allocated based on budgeted amounts. Cause: Allocation to funding sources were entered into the payroll system based on budgeted estimates rather than actual time records. Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of contemporaneous documentation of employee hours worked by grant or federal program could allow the Organization to improperly allocate employee pay to federal grants. Questioned Costs: $41,865 Context: As most employees work specifically on a single program, there was one employee that worked on multiple programs for which time spent on the program could not be substantiated. The total questioned cost allocated to the program for this person totaled $41,865. Recommendation: The Organization should implement a requirement for employees, both exempt and nonexempt, to maintain accurate records of hours worked by program. Repeat finding: Yes, 2023-003. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization concurs with the finding and the related recommendations. Management has begun to implement mandatory time and program effort records during the year ending June 30, 2025.
Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number 17.259 – WIOA Youth Activities Program – U.S. Department of Labor. Pass-through Entity: New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. Award Number: 90535B / 90536B / 90537B / 90538B. Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: Requirements per section 2 CFR Part 200.430 of the Uniform Guidance state that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing for the year ended June 30, 2024, we noted a lack of detail for employee’s actual hours spent on different programs. Time and effort are allocated based on budgeted amounts. Cause: Allocation to funding sources were entered into the payroll system based on budgeted estimates rather than actual time records. Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of contemporaneous documentation of employee hours worked by grant or federal program could allow the Organization to improperly allocate employee pay to federal grants. Questioned Costs: $41,865 Context: As most employees work specifically on a single program, there was one employee that worked on multiple programs for which time spent on the program could not be substantiated. The total questioned cost allocated to the program for this person totaled $41,865. Recommendation: The Organization should implement a requirement for employees, both exempt and nonexempt, to maintain accurate records of hours worked by program. Repeat finding: Yes, 2023-003. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization concurs with the finding and the related recommendations. Management has begun to implement mandatory time and program effort records during the year ending June 30, 2025.
Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number 17.259 – WIOA Youth Activities Program – U.S. Department of Labor. Pass-through Entity: New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. Award Number: 90535B / 90536B / 90537B / 90538B. Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: Requirements per section 2 CFR Part 200.430 of the Uniform Guidance state that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing for the year ended June 30, 2024, we noted a lack of detail for employee’s actual hours spent on different programs. Time and effort are allocated based on budgeted amounts. Cause: Allocation to funding sources were entered into the payroll system based on budgeted estimates rather than actual time records. Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of contemporaneous documentation of employee hours worked by grant or federal program could allow the Organization to improperly allocate employee pay to federal grants. Questioned Costs: $41,865 Context: As most employees work specifically on a single program, there was one employee that worked on multiple programs for which time spent on the program could not be substantiated. The total questioned cost allocated to the program for this person totaled $41,865. Recommendation: The Organization should implement a requirement for employees, both exempt and nonexempt, to maintain accurate records of hours worked by program. Repeat finding: Yes, 2023-003. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization concurs with the finding and the related recommendations. Management has begun to implement mandatory time and program effort records during the year ending June 30, 2025.
Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number 17.259 – WIOA Youth Activities Program – U.S. Department of Labor. Pass-through Entity: New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. Award Number: 90535B / 90536B / 90537B / 90538B. Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: Requirements per section 2 CFR Part 200.430 of the Uniform Guidance state that charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing for the year ended June 30, 2024, we noted a lack of detail for employee’s actual hours spent on different programs. Time and effort are allocated based on budgeted amounts. Cause: Allocation to funding sources were entered into the payroll system based on budgeted estimates rather than actual time records. Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of contemporaneous documentation of employee hours worked by grant or federal program could allow the Organization to improperly allocate employee pay to federal grants. Questioned Costs: $41,865 Context: As most employees work specifically on a single program, there was one employee that worked on multiple programs for which time spent on the program could not be substantiated. The total questioned cost allocated to the program for this person totaled $41,865. Recommendation: The Organization should implement a requirement for employees, both exempt and nonexempt, to maintain accurate records of hours worked by program. Repeat finding: Yes, 2023-003. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization concurs with the finding and the related recommendations. Management has begun to implement mandatory time and program effort records during the year ending June 30, 2025.
Finding 2024-003 Federal Program Information: Research and Development Cluster (ALN: 12.420), The National COVID-19 Resiliency Network (“NCRN”): Mitigating the Impact of COVID-19 on Vulnerable Populations (ALN: 93.137), COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (“HEERF”) (ALN: 84.425J), and Title III Part B Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“Title III”) (ALN: 84.031) Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation) B. Allowable Cost/Cost Principles - Federal grant requirements, § 200.430, provide that salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed; be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the institution; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated; and support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award. Condition: During our testing of expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: • For 1 of 25 selected Research and Development Cluster expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected NCRN expenditures, level of effort certification did not accurately reflect time and effort charged to the federal program. • For 12 of 25 selected HEERF expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected Title III expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. Cause: Insufficient administrative oversight and internal controls with respect to allowable cost/cost principles compliance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The School does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that compliance is maintained with respect to supporting payroll costs charged to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: We tested a sample of 100 expenditures across four major programs and noted 15 exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the School’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur. We are identifying personnel that will be allocated to federal awards to ensure all effort reports are reviewed and certified timely. During the next effort reporting cycle, the school will transition to a new automated system, Cayuse effort reporting. This will give the Office of Grants & Contracts Faculty and Staff increased visibility into the personnel allocated to federal awards in a more efficient manner. We will complete the corrective action no later than June 30, 2025. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-005 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend that the School adhere to its procedures and internal controls over the applicable compliance requirements of allowable costs/cost principles requirements to ensure that the School is appropriately monitoring level of effort reporting in a timely manner.
Finding 2024-003 Federal Program Information: Research and Development Cluster (ALN: 12.420), The National COVID-19 Resiliency Network (“NCRN”): Mitigating the Impact of COVID-19 on Vulnerable Populations (ALN: 93.137), COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (“HEERF”) (ALN: 84.425J), and Title III Part B Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“Title III”) (ALN: 84.031) Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation) B. Allowable Cost/Cost Principles - Federal grant requirements, § 200.430, provide that salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed; be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the institution; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated; and support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award. Condition: During our testing of expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: • For 1 of 25 selected Research and Development Cluster expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected NCRN expenditures, level of effort certification did not accurately reflect time and effort charged to the federal program. • For 12 of 25 selected HEERF expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected Title III expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. Cause: Insufficient administrative oversight and internal controls with respect to allowable cost/cost principles compliance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The School does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that compliance is maintained with respect to supporting payroll costs charged to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: We tested a sample of 100 expenditures across four major programs and noted 15 exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the School’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur. We are identifying personnel that will be allocated to federal awards to ensure all effort reports are reviewed and certified timely. During the next effort reporting cycle, the school will transition to a new automated system, Cayuse effort reporting. This will give the Office of Grants & Contracts Faculty and Staff increased visibility into the personnel allocated to federal awards in a more efficient manner. We will complete the corrective action no later than June 30, 2025. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-005 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend that the School adhere to its procedures and internal controls over the applicable compliance requirements of allowable costs/cost principles requirements to ensure that the School is appropriately monitoring level of effort reporting in a timely manner.
Finding 2024-003 Federal Program Information: Research and Development Cluster (ALN: 12.420), The National COVID-19 Resiliency Network (“NCRN”): Mitigating the Impact of COVID-19 on Vulnerable Populations (ALN: 93.137), COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (“HEERF”) (ALN: 84.425J), and Title III Part B Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“Title III”) (ALN: 84.031) Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation) B. Allowable Cost/Cost Principles - Federal grant requirements, § 200.430, provide that salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed; be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the institution; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated; and support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award. Condition: During our testing of expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: • For 1 of 25 selected Research and Development Cluster expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected NCRN expenditures, level of effort certification did not accurately reflect time and effort charged to the federal program. • For 12 of 25 selected HEERF expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected Title III expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. Cause: Insufficient administrative oversight and internal controls with respect to allowable cost/cost principles compliance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The School does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that compliance is maintained with respect to supporting payroll costs charged to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: We tested a sample of 100 expenditures across four major programs and noted 15 exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the School’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur. We are identifying personnel that will be allocated to federal awards to ensure all effort reports are reviewed and certified timely. During the next effort reporting cycle, the school will transition to a new automated system, Cayuse effort reporting. This will give the Office of Grants & Contracts Faculty and Staff increased visibility into the personnel allocated to federal awards in a more efficient manner. We will complete the corrective action no later than June 30, 2025. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-005 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend that the School adhere to its procedures and internal controls over the applicable compliance requirements of allowable costs/cost principles requirements to ensure that the School is appropriately monitoring level of effort reporting in a timely manner.
Finding 2024-003 Federal Program Information: Research and Development Cluster (ALN: 12.420), The National COVID-19 Resiliency Network (“NCRN”): Mitigating the Impact of COVID-19 on Vulnerable Populations (ALN: 93.137), COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (“HEERF”) (ALN: 84.425J), and Title III Part B Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“Title III”) (ALN: 84.031) Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory or Other Citation) B. Allowable Cost/Cost Principles - Federal grant requirements, § 200.430, provide that salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed; be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the institution; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated; and support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award. Condition: During our testing of expenditures, we noted the following exceptions: • For 1 of 25 selected Research and Development Cluster expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected NCRN expenditures, level of effort certification did not accurately reflect time and effort charged to the federal program. • For 12 of 25 selected HEERF expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. • For 1 of 25 selected Title III expenditures, level of effort certifications were not available to support the payroll costs charged to the federal program. Cause: Insufficient administrative oversight and internal controls with respect to allowable cost/cost principles compliance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: The School does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure that compliance is maintained with respect to supporting payroll costs charged to the federal programs. Questioned Costs: Indeterminable. Context: We tested a sample of 100 expenditures across four major programs and noted 15 exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the School’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We concur. We are identifying personnel that will be allocated to federal awards to ensure all effort reports are reviewed and certified timely. During the next effort reporting cycle, the school will transition to a new automated system, Cayuse effort reporting. This will give the Office of Grants & Contracts Faculty and Staff increased visibility into the personnel allocated to federal awards in a more efficient manner. We will complete the corrective action no later than June 30, 2025. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-005 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend that the School adhere to its procedures and internal controls over the applicable compliance requirements of allowable costs/cost principles requirements to ensure that the School is appropriately monitoring level of effort reporting in a timely manner.
Department of Interior Federal Financial Assistance Listing 15.042 Indian School Equalization Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed or Unallowed Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance and Immaterial Instance of Noncompliance Criteria – A good system of internal control includes an adequate system for ensuring all expenditures are properly recorded and allowable under the related federal grant in accordance with 2 CFR 200.430(i). Condition – In our testing of allowable costs and activities we noted several instances where payroll expenditures were not paid in accordance with the employment letter. Cause – Procedures are not in place to adequately identify unallowable costs or activities. Effect – A lack of internal controls over allowable costs and activities could result in improper use of federal funds and non-compliance with the provisions of applicable grant requirements. Questioned Costs – None reported Context/Sampling – A nonstatistical sample of 60 transactions out of 10,014 total transactions were selected for testing, which accounted for $61,549 of $2,139,500 of federal program expenditures. Repeat Finding from Prior Years – Yes, 2023-008 Recommendation – The School should review internal control procedures to ensure federal expenditures are being properly reviewed for unallowable costs and activities. Views of Responsible Officials – There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Department of the Interior Federal Financial Assistance Listing 15.046 Administrative Cost Grants for Indian Schools Allowable Costs/Activities Allowed or Unallowed Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance and Immaterial Instance of Noncompliance Criteria – A good system of internal control includes an adequate system for ensuring all expenditures are properly recorded and allowable under the related federal grant in accordance with 2 CFR 200.430(i). Condition – In our testing of allowable costs and activities we noted six instances where payroll expenditures were not paid in accordance with the employment letter. Cause – Procedures are not in place to adequately identify unallowable costs or activities. Effect – A lack of internal controls over allowable costs and activities could result in the improper use of federal funds and non-compliance with the provisions of applicable grant requirements. Questioned Costs – None reported Context/Sampling – A nonstatistical sample of 60 transactions out of 882 total transactions were selected for testing, which accounted for $138,702 of $781,712 of federal program expenditures. Repeat Finding from Prior Years – Yes, 2023-007 Recommendation – The School should review internal control procedures to ensure federal expenditures are being properly reviewed for unallowable costs and activities. Views of Responsible Officials – There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Finding number: 2024-006 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Commonwealth Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Title I, Grants to Local Education Agencies ALN #: 84.010 Award number: 0305-000549-2024-0035 Award year: September 12, 2023 to September 30, 2025 Finding: Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Costs Prior Year Finding: Yes; 2023-006 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both Federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition During our testing of allowable costs associated with payroll charges, we noted that the City of Boston Public Schools (BPS) documents time and attendance of employees on daily timesheets signed by the employee, and that these timesheets are approved by the Department Head/Supervisor on a Department Time Summary Report (DTSR). However, for our sample of 60 payroll transactions charged to the program, 3 transactions were not supported by a completed timesheet. Cause This appears to be due to an insufficient system for collecting, filing and maintaining supporting documentation for payroll transactions charged to Federal programs. Effect Insufficient review of payroll documentation increases the risk of inaccurate payroll costs being allocated to a grant award. Additionally, BPS is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) regarding documentation in support of salaries and wages charge to the federal program. Whether Sampling was Statistically Valid The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs of $13,382, for unsupported payroll charges, were charged to ALN # 84.010, Award No. 0305-000549-2024-0035 Recommendation We recommend that BPS re-enforce its policies and procedures to ensure their review of payroll charges and records are retained to ensure that all payroll costs charged to the federal program are supported by documentation as required by 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1). View of Responsible Officials from the Auditee BPS will add additional guidance around timesheet retention to the trainings for new timekeepers and at the annual payroll training held every August.
Finding number: 2024-010 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Commonwealth Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Special Education (IDEA) Cluster ALN #: 84.027; 84.173 Award number: 240-714716-2023-0035; 0240-000558-2024-0035 Award year: October 3, 2022 to September 30, 2024; October 2, 2023 to September 30, 2025 Finding: Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Costs Prior Year Finding: Yes; 2023-011 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both Federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that thenon-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition During our testing of allowable costs associated with payroll charges, we noted that the City of Boston Public Schools (BPS) documents time and attendance of employees on daily timesheets signed by the employee, and that these timesheets are approved by the Department Head/Supervisor on a Department Time Summary Report (DTSR). However, for our sample of 60 payroll transactions charged to the program, 4 DTSR’s were not approved. Additionally, although the DTSR was approved, the transactions were not supported by a completed timesheet for an additional 3 selections. Cause This appears to be due to an insufficient system for collecting, filing and maintaining supporting documentation for payroll transactions charged to Federal programs. Effect Insufficient review of payroll documentation increases the risk of inaccurate payroll costs being allocated to a grant award. Additionally, BPS is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) regarding documentation in support of salaries and wages charge to the federal program. Whether Sampling was Statistically Valid The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs of $13,149, for unsupported payroll charges Recommendation We recommend that BPS re-enforce its policies and procedures to ensure their review of payroll charges and records are retained and documented to ensure that all payroll costs charged to the federal program are supported by documentation as required by 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1). View of Responsible Officials from the Auditee BPS will add additional guidance around timesheet retention to the trainings for new timekeepers and at the annual payroll training held every August. Additionally, BPS is exploring electronic timesheets, with a pilot focusing on staff that work at multiple sites.
Finding number: 2024-010 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Commonwealth Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Special Education (IDEA) Cluster ALN #: 84.027; 84.173 Award number: 240-714716-2023-0035; 0240-000558-2024-0035 Award year: October 3, 2022 to September 30, 2024; October 2, 2023 to September 30, 2025 Finding: Internal Control and Compliance over Payroll Costs Prior Year Finding: Yes; 2023-011 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities; (iv) Encompass both Federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity’s written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity; and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that thenon-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition During our testing of allowable costs associated with payroll charges, we noted that the City of Boston Public Schools (BPS) documents time and attendance of employees on daily timesheets signed by the employee, and that these timesheets are approved by the Department Head/Supervisor on a Department Time Summary Report (DTSR). However, for our sample of 60 payroll transactions charged to the program, 4 DTSR’s were not approved. Additionally, although the DTSR was approved, the transactions were not supported by a completed timesheet for an additional 3 selections. Cause This appears to be due to an insufficient system for collecting, filing and maintaining supporting documentation for payroll transactions charged to Federal programs. Effect Insufficient review of payroll documentation increases the risk of inaccurate payroll costs being allocated to a grant award. Additionally, BPS is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1) regarding documentation in support of salaries and wages charge to the federal program. Whether Sampling was Statistically Valid The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs of $13,149, for unsupported payroll charges Recommendation We recommend that BPS re-enforce its policies and procedures to ensure their review of payroll charges and records are retained and documented to ensure that all payroll costs charged to the federal program are supported by documentation as required by 2 CFR 200.430(i)(1). View of Responsible Officials from the Auditee BPS will add additional guidance around timesheet retention to the trainings for new timekeepers and at the annual payroll training held every August. Additionally, BPS is exploring electronic timesheets, with a pilot focusing on staff that work at multiple sites.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.430(h)(8)(i) requires that amounts of personnel expenses are properly documented and include appropriate controls and documentation to support the distribution of the employee's wages among specific activities if the employee works on more than one award. Condition: Of the testing population of 40 payroll transactions tested, for 10 transactions the Center was unable to provide a timesheet or other documentation to substantiate the application of the individual's time for that period. Cause: Due to limited staffing resources, the Center was not able to ensure maintenance of adequate documentation. Effect: The Center is not able to demonstrate that the personnel expenses allocated to the grant was proper and ensure avoidance of duplication of funding requests for the same amounts. Questioned Costs: Our sample of 40 items consisted of $76,186 in costs of which $1,384 were identified as known questioned costs. This amount was extrapolated for the total payroll costs of $3,173,321 which results in an extrapolated value of $57,656 of likely questioned costs. Recommendation: Management should review and refine its process of tracking payroll costs by grant to ensure that the costs are supported by a system of internal controls which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, are properly allocated, and reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding; see corrective action plan.
2024-001. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles: Compensation – Personal Services United States Department of Education, Passed Through New York State, Department of Education: Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Special Education Grants to States: IDEA 611 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.027X Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA Preschool ALN: 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA 619 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.173X Criteria: Salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be supported by documentation prescribed by the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Condition: Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 of the Uniform Guidance requires that charges to “Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” The documentation should support the distribution of the employee's compensation among specific activities if the employee works on more than one federal award, or a federal award and non-federal award. The preparation of personnel activity reports (PARs) or periodic certifications or the equivalent is the most effective way to comply with this requirement. During the current year, the District prepared periodic certification equivalents, but it did not comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Cause: The staff that were responsible for maintaining records that accurately reflect the work performed, as described in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430, to support salaries charged to federal awards, on occasion prepared PARs, which were not signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. In some situations, sufficient details regarding the duties performed by the employes did not exist. Effect: Noncompliance could result in the incorrect amount for services rendered being charged to the federal award. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Time records for employees charged to federal awards to be maintained by the District are supportive of amounts included in budgets approved by the State. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should monitor its procedures to ascertain that documentation to support actual salaries and wages charged to federal awards are in a format that complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District agrees with the finding. Reza Kolahifar, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Personnel, will oversee the monitoring of procedures to ensure appropriate documentation will be prepared to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430.
2024-001. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles: Compensation – Personal Services United States Department of Education, Passed Through New York State, Department of Education: Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Special Education Grants to States: IDEA 611 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.027X Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA Preschool ALN: 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA 619 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.173X Criteria: Salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be supported by documentation prescribed by the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Condition: Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 of the Uniform Guidance requires that charges to “Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” The documentation should support the distribution of the employee's compensation among specific activities if the employee works on more than one federal award, or a federal award and non-federal award. The preparation of personnel activity reports (PARs) or periodic certifications or the equivalent is the most effective way to comply with this requirement. During the current year, the District prepared periodic certification equivalents, but it did not comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Cause: The staff that were responsible for maintaining records that accurately reflect the work performed, as described in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430, to support salaries charged to federal awards, on occasion prepared PARs, which were not signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. In some situations, sufficient details regarding the duties performed by the employes did not exist. Effect: Noncompliance could result in the incorrect amount for services rendered being charged to the federal award. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Time records for employees charged to federal awards to be maintained by the District are supportive of amounts included in budgets approved by the State. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should monitor its procedures to ascertain that documentation to support actual salaries and wages charged to federal awards are in a format that complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District agrees with the finding. Reza Kolahifar, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Personnel, will oversee the monitoring of procedures to ensure appropriate documentation will be prepared to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430.
2024-001. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles: Compensation – Personal Services United States Department of Education, Passed Through New York State, Department of Education: Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Special Education Grants to States: IDEA 611 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.027X Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA Preschool ALN: 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA 619 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.173X Criteria: Salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be supported by documentation prescribed by the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Condition: Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 of the Uniform Guidance requires that charges to “Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” The documentation should support the distribution of the employee's compensation among specific activities if the employee works on more than one federal award, or a federal award and non-federal award. The preparation of personnel activity reports (PARs) or periodic certifications or the equivalent is the most effective way to comply with this requirement. During the current year, the District prepared periodic certification equivalents, but it did not comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Cause: The staff that were responsible for maintaining records that accurately reflect the work performed, as described in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430, to support salaries charged to federal awards, on occasion prepared PARs, which were not signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. In some situations, sufficient details regarding the duties performed by the employes did not exist. Effect: Noncompliance could result in the incorrect amount for services rendered being charged to the federal award. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Time records for employees charged to federal awards to be maintained by the District are supportive of amounts included in budgets approved by the State. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should monitor its procedures to ascertain that documentation to support actual salaries and wages charged to federal awards are in a format that complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District agrees with the finding. Reza Kolahifar, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Personnel, will oversee the monitoring of procedures to ensure appropriate documentation will be prepared to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430.
2024-001. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles: Compensation – Personal Services United States Department of Education, Passed Through New York State, Department of Education: Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Special Education Grants to States: IDEA 611 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.027X Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA Preschool ALN: 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA 619 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.173X Criteria: Salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be supported by documentation prescribed by the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Condition: Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 of the Uniform Guidance requires that charges to “Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” The documentation should support the distribution of the employee's compensation among specific activities if the employee works on more than one federal award, or a federal award and non-federal award. The preparation of personnel activity reports (PARs) or periodic certifications or the equivalent is the most effective way to comply with this requirement. During the current year, the District prepared periodic certification equivalents, but it did not comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Cause: The staff that were responsible for maintaining records that accurately reflect the work performed, as described in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430, to support salaries charged to federal awards, on occasion prepared PARs, which were not signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. In some situations, sufficient details regarding the duties performed by the employes did not exist. Effect: Noncompliance could result in the incorrect amount for services rendered being charged to the federal award. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Time records for employees charged to federal awards to be maintained by the District are supportive of amounts included in budgets approved by the State. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should monitor its procedures to ascertain that documentation to support actual salaries and wages charged to federal awards are in a format that complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District agrees with the finding. Reza Kolahifar, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Personnel, will oversee the monitoring of procedures to ensure appropriate documentation will be prepared to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430.
2024-001. Allowable Costs/Cost Principles: Compensation – Personal Services United States Department of Education, Passed Through New York State, Department of Education: Special Education Cluster Special Education Grants to States: IDEA Part B ALN: 84.027 Special Education Grants to States: IDEA 611 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.027X Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA Preschool ALN: 84.173 Special Education Preschool Grants: IDEA 619 ARP Allocations ALN: 84.173X Criteria: Salaries and wages charged to federal awards must be supported by documentation prescribed by the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Condition: Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430 of the Uniform Guidance requires that charges to “Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” The documentation should support the distribution of the employee's compensation among specific activities if the employee works on more than one federal award, or a federal award and non-federal award. The preparation of personnel activity reports (PARs) or periodic certifications or the equivalent is the most effective way to comply with this requirement. During the current year, the District prepared periodic certification equivalents, but it did not comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Cause: The staff that were responsible for maintaining records that accurately reflect the work performed, as described in Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430, to support salaries charged to federal awards, on occasion prepared PARs, which were not signed by the employee or supervisory official having first-hand knowledge of the work performed by the employee. In some situations, sufficient details regarding the duties performed by the employes did not exist. Effect: Noncompliance could result in the incorrect amount for services rendered being charged to the federal award. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: Time records for employees charged to federal awards to be maintained by the District are supportive of amounts included in budgets approved by the State. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The District should monitor its procedures to ascertain that documentation to support actual salaries and wages charged to federal awards are in a format that complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance at Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430. Views of Responsible Officials of Auditee: The District agrees with the finding. Reza Kolahifar, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Personnel, will oversee the monitoring of procedures to ensure appropriate documentation will be prepared to comply with Subpart E, 2 CFR §200.430.
Criteria Part 2, CFR Part 200.430 notes “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed”. The document continues to state that documentation must “Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity.” Additionally, Part 200.431 states “The cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable is all of the following criteria are met:”. The criteria include that “the costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards.” Condition While performing tests of NBCC’s internal controls over payroll transactions, we noted the Organization had incorrectly allocated time for 8 of the 50 selections. Additionally, we noted that the Organization had allocated time for leave based on pre-determined budgets, rather than actual hours worked in the pay period, for 27 of the 50 selections. Cause NBCC has not implemented proper internal control policies to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding No. Effect Noncompliance may impact future funding from Federal awards. Recommendation We recommend NBCC implement proper internal control procedures to document hours worked, by employee and by grant; and maintain the documentation to support charges allocated to each Federal award.
Criteria Part 2, CFR Part 200.430 notes “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed”. The document continues to state that documentation must “Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity.” Additionally, Part 200.431 states “The cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable is all of the following criteria are met:”. The criteria include that “the costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards.” Condition While performing tests of NBCC’s internal controls over payroll transactions, we noted the Organization had incorrectly allocated time for 8 of the 50 selections. Additionally, we noted that the Organization had allocated time for leave based on pre-determined budgets, rather than actual hours worked in the pay period, for 27 of the 50 selections. Cause NBCC has not implemented proper internal control policies to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding No. Effect Noncompliance may impact future funding from Federal awards. Recommendation We recommend NBCC implement proper internal control procedures to document hours worked, by employee and by grant; and maintain the documentation to support charges allocated to each Federal award.
Criteria Part 2, CFR Part 200.430 notes “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed”. The document continues to state that documentation must “Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity.” Additionally, Part 200.431 states “The cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable is all of the following criteria are met:”. The criteria include that “the costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards.” Condition While performing tests of NBCC’s internal controls over payroll transactions, we noted the Organization had incorrectly allocated time for 8 of the 50 selections. Additionally, we noted that the Organization had allocated time for leave based on pre-determined budgets, rather than actual hours worked in the pay period, for 27 of the 50 selections. Cause NBCC has not implemented proper internal control policies to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding No. Effect Noncompliance may impact future funding from Federal awards. Recommendation We recommend NBCC implement proper internal control procedures to document hours worked, by employee and by grant; and maintain the documentation to support charges allocated to each Federal award.
Criteria Part 2, CFR Part 200.430 notes “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed”. The document continues to state that documentation must “Support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity.” Additionally, Part 200.431 states “The cost of fringe benefits in the form of regular compensation paid to employees during periods of authorized absences from the job, such as for annual leave, family-related leave, sick leave, holidays, court leave, military leave, administrative leave, and other similar benefits, are allowable is all of the following criteria are met:”. The criteria include that “the costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards.” Condition While performing tests of NBCC’s internal controls over payroll transactions, we noted the Organization had incorrectly allocated time for 8 of the 50 selections. Additionally, we noted that the Organization had allocated time for leave based on pre-determined budgets, rather than actual hours worked in the pay period, for 27 of the 50 selections. Cause NBCC has not implemented proper internal control policies to adhere to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding No. Effect Noncompliance may impact future funding from Federal awards. Recommendation We recommend NBCC implement proper internal control procedures to document hours worked, by employee and by grant; and maintain the documentation to support charges allocated to each Federal award.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (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. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non- Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation’s management had not developed an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were $1,944 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During testing of the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements, there were two vendor vouchers in a sample of 60, where the School Corporation was unable to locate any supporting documentation. These two selections totaled $1,530 charged to the grant. It was further noted that during our testing of payroll costs charged to the COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund, for 2 selections in a sample of 40, the School Corporation was unable to provide any support to validate the amount of payroll charged to the grant. These two selections totaled $414 charged to the COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the School Corporation’s management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and that expenditures charged to the grant comply with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Information on the federal program: Subject: Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) – Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425D, 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (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. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.430(i) states in part: "Standards for documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non- Federal entity, not exceeding 100% of compensated activities (for IHE, this per the IHE's definition of IBS); . . . (vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. . . ." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation’s management had not developed an effective system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective system of internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were $1,944 of known questioned costs identified. Context: During testing of the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements, there were two vendor vouchers in a sample of 60, where the School Corporation was unable to locate any supporting documentation. These two selections totaled $1,530 charged to the grant. It was further noted that during our testing of payroll costs charged to the COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund, for 2 selections in a sample of 40, the School Corporation was unable to provide any support to validate the amount of payroll charged to the grant. These two selections totaled $414 charged to the COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the School Corporation’s management establish a system of internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and that expenditures charged to the grant comply with the grant agreement and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430 states in part: (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity (See paragraph (h)(1)(ii) above for treatment of incidental work for IHEs.); and vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principle compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: $5,338 (Known questioned costs) Context: For 5 selections, in a sample of 5 payroll transactions, the School Corporation did not have time and effort logs to support the portion of the employee’s time charged to the grant. The employees’ time was split with a non-federal fund; however, the School Corporation did not have support for the allocation of the time charged to the School Lunch fund. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend management ensure semi-annual certifications are completed for all employees charged to the grant awards at 100% and time and effort logs are maintained for all employees not charged at 100% to support work performed and charged to the grant awards. We recommend management establish a documented review by management of semi-annual certifications and time and effort logs to ensure time charged to grant awards is allowable and allocable based on work performed in accordance with grant requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430 states in part: (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity (See paragraph (h)(1)(ii) above for treatment of incidental work for IHEs.); and vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principle compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: $5,338 (Known questioned costs) Context: For 5 selections, in a sample of 5 payroll transactions, the School Corporation did not have time and effort logs to support the portion of the employee’s time charged to the grant. The employees’ time was split with a non-federal fund; however, the School Corporation did not have support for the allocation of the time charged to the School Lunch fund. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend management ensure semi-annual certifications are completed for all employees charged to the grant awards at 100% and time and effort logs are maintained for all employees not charged at 100% to support work performed and charged to the grant awards. We recommend management establish a documented review by management of semi-annual certifications and time and effort logs to ensure time charged to grant awards is allowable and allocable based on work performed in accordance with grant requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-003 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Internal Controls Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Significant Deficiency Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.430 states in part: (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity, (iv) Encompass both federally assisted and all other activities compensated by the non-Federal entity on an integrated basis, but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the non-Federal entity's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity (See paragraph (h)(1)(ii) above for treatment of incidental work for IHEs.); and vii) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principle compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls to ensure compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School Corporation at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: $5,338 (Known questioned costs) Context: For 5 selections, in a sample of 5 payroll transactions, the School Corporation did not have time and effort logs to support the portion of the employee’s time charged to the grant. The employees’ time was split with a non-federal fund; however, the School Corporation did not have support for the allocation of the time charged to the School Lunch fund. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend management ensure semi-annual certifications are completed for all employees charged to the grant awards at 100% and time and effort logs are maintained for all employees not charged at 100% to support work performed and charged to the grant awards. We recommend management establish a documented review by management of semi-annual certifications and time and effort logs to ensure time charged to grant awards is allowable and allocable based on work performed in accordance with grant requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR § 200.430 which states, in part, that costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. In addition, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity; and support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award, a Federal award and non-Federal award, an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity, two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases, or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Service Center Policy 6116 for Time and Effort Reporting indicates the reports should support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one federal award, a Federal award and non-Federal award, an indirect and direct cost activity, two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases, or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. The payroll office is responsible for the distribution, collection, and retention of all employee time and effort reports. The Service Center did not follow policy 6116 relating to time and effort resulting in the following errors: • The wages and related benefits for four out of 40 employee payroll checks tested totaling $2,569 were charged to the Special Education Grant Fund without any time and effort documentation. Semi-Annual Certifications, Personnel Activity Reports (PARs), or a Substitute System were not maintained to support the amount of time worked on the grant. Therefore, we consider the wages and related benefits for these employees in the amount of $2,569 to be questioned costs. Failure to maintain the appropriate time and effort documentation could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. The Service Center should ensure all employees charging wages and benefits to federal grants maintain the appropriate documentation supporting the time spent on the grant, in accordance with the Service Center’s policy. Appropriate supporting documentation could include semi-annual certifications for employees working solely on a single cost objective or personal activity reports or timesheets with sufficient detail when an employee works on multiple activities.
2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR § 200.430 which states, in part, that costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the non-federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities. In addition, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity; reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity; and support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award, a Federal award and non-Federal award, an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity, two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases, or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Service Center Policy 6116 for Time and Effort Reporting indicates the reports should support the distribution of the employee’s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one federal award, a Federal award and non-Federal award, an indirect and direct cost activity, two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases, or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. The payroll office is responsible for the distribution, collection, and retention of all employee time and effort reports. The Service Center did not follow policy 6116 relating to time and effort resulting in the following errors: • The wages and related benefits for four out of 40 employee payroll checks tested totaling $2,569 were charged to the Special Education Grant Fund without any time and effort documentation. Semi-Annual Certifications, Personnel Activity Reports (PARs), or a Substitute System were not maintained to support the amount of time worked on the grant. Therefore, we consider the wages and related benefits for these employees in the amount of $2,569 to be questioned costs. Failure to maintain the appropriate time and effort documentation could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. The Service Center should ensure all employees charging wages and benefits to federal grants maintain the appropriate documentation supporting the time spent on the grant, in accordance with the Service Center’s policy. Appropriate supporting documentation could include semi-annual certifications for employees working solely on a single cost objective or personal activity reports or timesheets with sufficient detail when an employee works on multiple activities.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Immunization Cooperative Agreements Assistance Listing Number: 93.268 Pass-through Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Health Pass-through Number: 4100090652 Award Period: July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2025 Compliance Requirement Affected: Allowable Costs Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matters Criteria: 3 CFR Part 200 Subpart E General Provisions for Selected Items of Cost Section 200.430 Compensation – requires charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. Budget estimates determined before the services are performed alone do not qualify as support for charges to the federal awards. The Chapter’s system of internal controls should include processes to perform periodic after-the-fact reviews of interim charges made to a federal award based on budget estimates. All necessary adjustments must be made so that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing, we noted the Chapter charges fringe benefits to the program based on an estimated allocation on the percentage of salaries as determined in the contract budget. However, we noted the Chapter does not have internal controls in place to provide a review of the actual fringe benefits incurred. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs above the $25,000 threshold have been identified. Context: During our testing, we noted the Chapter charges fringe benefits to the programs based on an estimated allocation on the percentage of salaries as determined in the contract budget. Cause: The Chapter does not have internal controls in place to provide a review of the actual fringe benefits incurred. Effect: Allocated costs that are not appropriately budgeted and invoiced could result in inaccurate reporting and misrepresentation of the program's expenses. Inaccurate reporting of expenses can result in noncompliance with federal regulations, which may lead to the requirement to return funds to the federal agency. Repeat Finding: N/A: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend Pennsylvania Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics establish a process for periodic after-the-fact reviews of interim charges made to federal awards based on budget estimates. Based on the review, management should make any necessary adjustments to the interim charges based on the results of the periodic reviews. This would ensure that the final amount charged to the federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Viewed of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Please refer to Pennsylvania Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2024-002 – Allowable Costs / Principles & Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program: Block Grants for Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services AL Number: 93.959 Award Number: 24-05-128 & 6B08TI085827-01M002 Award Year: 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.430(g)(1)(i) & (ii), “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated and be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient.” Condition: During our testing of allowable costs and activities, it was determined that the Company’s internal controls over salaries and wages were not sufficient. Although the Organization maintained copies of employees’ original hiring documents, pay raises that were subsequent to the original hiring, and the related approvals, were not documented or maintained. Additionally, we noted that there is not a formal process to review employee timesheets or the payroll submission process as a whole. Context: There were 40 instances of employees’ salaries and wages tested. The sample consisted of six employees tested for seven pay periods, with one employee tested for five pay periods. For each instance tested, the deficiency in internal controls around payroll costs, as described in the Condition section, applied. Cause: The Organization did not maintain documentation of employee pay raises or the necessary approvals for those pay raises. The Organization’s internal control process around payroll costs does not include review of employee timesheets to ensure that reported time is reasonable and accurate. Effect: Lack of internal controls surrounding payroll costs could potentially lead to improper allocation of payroll costs to the Federal grant. Repeat finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization improve it’s internal control processes surrounding payroll costs. Specifically, documenting the approval of pay raises and maintaining that documentation as well as documenting the review and approval of employee timesheets and processing payroll for each pay run. Management’s Response: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2024-002 – Allowable Costs / Principles & Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program: Block Grants for Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services AL Number: 93.959 Award Number: 24-05-128 & 6B08TI085827-01M002 Award Year: 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.430(g)(1)(i) & (ii), “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated and be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient.” Condition: During our testing of allowable costs and activities, it was determined that the Company’s internal controls over salaries and wages were not sufficient. Although the Organization maintained copies of employees’ original hiring documents, pay raises that were subsequent to the original hiring, and the related approvals, were not documented or maintained. Additionally, we noted that there is not a formal process to review employee timesheets or the payroll submission process as a whole. Context: There were 40 instances of employees’ salaries and wages tested. The sample consisted of six employees tested for seven pay periods, with one employee tested for five pay periods. For each instance tested, the deficiency in internal controls around payroll costs, as described in the Condition section, applied. Cause: The Organization did not maintain documentation of employee pay raises or the necessary approvals for those pay raises. The Organization’s internal control process around payroll costs does not include review of employee timesheets to ensure that reported time is reasonable and accurate. Effect: Lack of internal controls surrounding payroll costs could potentially lead to improper allocation of payroll costs to the Federal grant. Repeat finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization improve it’s internal control processes surrounding payroll costs. Specifically, documenting the approval of pay raises and maintaining that documentation as well as documenting the review and approval of employee timesheets and processing payroll for each pay run. Management’s Response: See Corrective Action Plan.