Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Cluster: Research and Development (relevant to assistance listing numbers 17.720 and 93.846 below) Sponsoring Agency: Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services Award Names: Research and Development- VT RETAIN - Phase 2, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research Other major programs: H-1B Rural Healthcare Grant Program, Upstream 2: Increasing mental health and trauma identification and referrals for youth ages 12-18 years, Improving Care for Children and Youth in NH with Trauma and Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Project TIDD), Project Launch Upper Valley: Promoting a healthy start for young children and their caregivers, Rural Health Outreach and Rural Network Development Program, Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) , Community Mental Health Block Grant Award Numbers: 1947RTN2-02, 1R01AR081952-01A, HG-35889-21-60-A-33, 1H79SM084710-01, 1H79SM084906-01, 1H79SM082302-01, 1 GA1RH42907-01-00, SS-2022-OCOM-02-CLINI-01 Assistance Listing Title: Disability Employment Policy Development, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, H-1B Job Training Grants, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Projects of Regional and National Significance, Rural Health Care Services, Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services Assistance Listing Number: 17.720, 93.846, 17.268, 93.243, 93.912, 93.958 Award Year: 2023-2024 Pass-through entity: Vermont Department of Labor, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, Not applicable, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Criteria 2 CFR 200.430 contains the federal regulatory requirements for internal controls over certifying time expended on sponsored projects. The Dartmouth Health System’s practice is to utilize after-the-fact effort reports to certify that compensation costs charged to federal awards, are reasonable and consistent with the work performed. Actual effort expended on each federal award is certified by a responsible person with suitable means of verification that the work was performed at the end of the specified reporting period. The Dartmouth Health System’s effort certification policy outlines the required deadlines for certifying effort reports related to federal awards. Condition In testing internal controls over effort certifications, we noted the following: • Research and development- 7 of 7 selected effort reports totaling $21.4k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 208 days late. • 17.268- 2 of 2 selected effort reports totaling $7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 62 days late. • 93.243- 4 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $5k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 78 days late. • 93.912- 3 of 3 selected effort reports totaling $4.3k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 179 days late. • 93.958- 2 of 4 selected effort reports totaling $17.7k were certified/approved outside of allowable timeframe defined by the effort certification policy. They were on average 189 days late. Cause Individuals required to complete quarterly effort certifications did not understand the policy requirements to certify effort in a timely manner. Effect The lack of timely effort certification could result in compensation expenditures charged to federal awards that are not accurate. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the Dartmouth Health System recommunicate its effort certification policy and provide training to all individuals required to certify effort for federal awards to ensure that the timely approval expectations are understood and adhered to.
Assistance Listings number and name: 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States Award numbers and years: 24FABASC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIELCC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIETCO-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FPRLEC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIECTC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 Compliance requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs / Cost Principles Questioned costs: $52,754 Assistance Listings number and name: 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Award numbers and years: P031S160090, October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2023; P031S190167, October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024; P031S200096, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2025; P031S200281, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2025; P031C210057, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2026; P031C210077, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2026; P031S220015, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2027; P031S220179, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2027; P031A230147, October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2028; P031S230158, October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2028 Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed Questioned costs: $20,411 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Total questioned costs: $73,165 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations, State law, and District policies, the District did not always retain documentation supporting the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs’ payroll costs or approve employee time sheets after the work was performed for these programs. Specifically, the District could not provide documentation to support employees’ pay rates and authorization to perform work for these programs, such as offer letters, contracts, and personnel action forms, or did not approve employee time sheets after the work was performed for 22 of 54 payroll transactions we tested totaling $73,165. See finding 2024-01 in our Report on Internal Controls and Compliance for a similar finding related to the District not reviewing or approving employee timesheets.1 Also, see Table 1 on the next page for further information. Table 1 Summary of the $73,165 of payroll costs the District did not properly support or approve Fiscal year 2024 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Total for both programs Total employees tested 35 19 54 Total employees with unsupported pay rates and lack of authorization to perform work for the programs 7 1 8 Total unsupported payroll costs $52,366 $9,636 $62,002 Total employee time sheets lacking approval after the work was performed2 2 12 14 Total unapproved payroll costs $388 $10,775 $11,163 Total number of employees with unsupported or unapproved payroll costs 9 13 22 Total salaries not supported $52,754 $20,411 $73,165 Effect—The District’s failure to retain documentation supporting payroll costs and approve time sheets increased the risk that the $52,754 for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and $20,411 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs may not have been spent in accordance with their award terms and conditions. Consequently, the District may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.3 Further, see Table 2 for information on the overall payroll costs per program during fiscal year 2024 that are at an increased risk of not being spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Finally, the District is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Table 2 Calculation of percent of payroll costs to total program expenditures Fiscal year 2024 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Total number of employees 279 214 Total payroll costs $3,613,133 $1,984,462 Total program costs $5,026,228 $6,696,263 % of payroll costs to total program costs 72% 30% Cause—The District’s management reported that it did not retain documentation to support employees’ pay rates and authorization to perform work for the federal programs for employees hired prior to 2018 as they were archived and support was no longer available, and some offers for temporary employees were made verbally over the phone and never documented. The District’s policies and procedures lack requirements to document all employment offers, including temporary employment offers. Additionally, as discussed in finding 2024-01 in our Report on Internal Controls and Compliance, some supervisors did not follow District policies and procedures requiring employees’ time sheets to be reviewed and approved either before processing payroll or within 3 business days after receiving a payroll email notification that the employee’s time sheet needed approval.1 Finally, District management did not sufficiently monitor whether each college’s Human Resources Department was enforcing these policies and procedures or verifying that supervisors reviewed and approved employees’ time sheets, as required. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the District to maintain records for salaries and wages charged to federal awards that accurately reflect the work performed to ensure they are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated (2 CFR §200.430[g][1][i]). Also, federal regulation, similar to State law and the District’s record retention policies, requires the District to retain all public records, including those contained in personnel files, related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor (2 CFR §200.334).4,5 Further, the District’s written procedures require each employee’s time sheet to be reviewed and approved by the employee’s supervisor either before processing payroll or within 3 business days from receiving a payroll email notification that the employee’s time sheet needs approval. Additionally, each college’s Human Resources Department is responsible for verifying that supervisors review and approve time sheets timely.6 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The District should: 1. Retain documentation for all payroll costs, such as employment agreements or acceptance letters, to demonstrate employees’ salaries and wages are authorized to be charged to federal programs and spent in accordance with the programs’ award terms and conditions. 2. Review the fiscal year 2024 payroll costs for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs to ensure they were properly supported and spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions and coordinate with the U.S. Department of Education, as necessary, to adjust future federal reimbursement requests or repay any unallowable costs the District charged to the programs. 3. Enforce and train employees on District written procedures and requirements to: a. Retain all public records, including those contained in personnel files, related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor. b. Ensure supervisors review and approve employees’ time sheets, either before payroll is processed or within 3 business days from receiving the payroll email notification that a time sheet needs approval, to verify employees accurately reported their time worked. This review should be performed after the employee performed the work to ensure the payroll costs charged to the programs accurately reflect the work performed and are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. 4. Update District written procedures to require documentation of all employment offers, including offers for temporary employees. The District’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Arizona Auditor General. (2024). Report on Internal Control and Compliance, June 30, 2024. Phoenix, AZ. https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/MaricopaCountyCommunityCollegeDistrictJune30_2024ReportOnInternalControlAndCompliance.pdf 2 The 14 employee time sheets lacking approval after the work was performed includes 5 time sheets totaling $6,917 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid program that were never approved by a supervisor and 2 time sheets totaling $388 for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States program and 7 time sheets totaling $3,858 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid program that were approved by a supervisor between 1 and 7 days prior to the work being performed by the employee. 3 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the District, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 4 Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD). (2023). Staff Policy Manual. 5 Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. (2023) General Retention Schedule Created for All Public Bodies. Retrieved 3/12/25 from https://apps.azlibrary.gov/files/docs/all_general_schedules_searchable.pdf 6 Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD). Version 1.1 (2019). Monitoring Time Approvals: Monitoring Procedures.
Assistance Listings number and name: 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States Award numbers and years: 24FABASC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIELCC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIETCO-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FPRLEC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024; 24FIECTC-412421-01A, July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 Compliance requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs / Cost Principles Questioned costs: $52,754 Assistance Listings number and name: 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Award numbers and years: P031S160090, October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2023; P031S190167, October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2024; P031S200096, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2025; P031S200281, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2025; P031C210057, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2026; P031C210077, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2026; P031S220015, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2027; P031S220179, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2027; P031A230147, October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2028; P031S230158, October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2028 Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed Questioned costs: $20,411 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Total questioned costs: $73,165 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations, State law, and District policies, the District did not always retain documentation supporting the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs’ payroll costs or approve employee time sheets after the work was performed for these programs. Specifically, the District could not provide documentation to support employees’ pay rates and authorization to perform work for these programs, such as offer letters, contracts, and personnel action forms, or did not approve employee time sheets after the work was performed for 22 of 54 payroll transactions we tested totaling $73,165. See finding 2024-01 in our Report on Internal Controls and Compliance for a similar finding related to the District not reviewing or approving employee timesheets.1 Also, see Table 1 on the next page for further information. Table 1 Summary of the $73,165 of payroll costs the District did not properly support or approve Fiscal year 2024 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Total for both programs Total employees tested 35 19 54 Total employees with unsupported pay rates and lack of authorization to perform work for the programs 7 1 8 Total unsupported payroll costs $52,366 $9,636 $62,002 Total employee time sheets lacking approval after the work was performed2 2 12 14 Total unapproved payroll costs $388 $10,775 $11,163 Total number of employees with unsupported or unapproved payroll costs 9 13 22 Total salaries not supported $52,754 $20,411 $73,165 Effect—The District’s failure to retain documentation supporting payroll costs and approve time sheets increased the risk that the $52,754 for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and $20,411 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs may not have been spent in accordance with their award terms and conditions. Consequently, the District may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.3 Further, see Table 2 for information on the overall payroll costs per program during fiscal year 2024 that are at an increased risk of not being spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions. Finally, the District is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Table 2 Calculation of percent of payroll costs to total program expenditures Fiscal year 2024 84.002 Adult Education—Basic Grants to States 84.031 Higher Education—Institutional Aid Total number of employees 279 214 Total payroll costs $3,613,133 $1,984,462 Total program costs $5,026,228 $6,696,263 % of payroll costs to total program costs 72% 30% Cause—The District’s management reported that it did not retain documentation to support employees’ pay rates and authorization to perform work for the federal programs for employees hired prior to 2018 as they were archived and support was no longer available, and some offers for temporary employees were made verbally over the phone and never documented. The District’s policies and procedures lack requirements to document all employment offers, including temporary employment offers. Additionally, as discussed in finding 2024-01 in our Report on Internal Controls and Compliance, some supervisors did not follow District policies and procedures requiring employees’ time sheets to be reviewed and approved either before processing payroll or within 3 business days after receiving a payroll email notification that the employee’s time sheet needed approval.1 Finally, District management did not sufficiently monitor whether each college’s Human Resources Department was enforcing these policies and procedures or verifying that supervisors reviewed and approved employees’ time sheets, as required. Criteria—Federal regulation requires the District to maintain records for salaries and wages charged to federal awards that accurately reflect the work performed to ensure they are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated (2 CFR §200.430[g][1][i]). Also, federal regulation, similar to State law and the District’s record retention policies, requires the District to retain all public records, including those contained in personnel files, related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor (2 CFR §200.334).4,5 Further, the District’s written procedures require each employee’s time sheet to be reviewed and approved by the employee’s supervisor either before processing payroll or within 3 business days from receiving a payroll email notification that the employee’s time sheet needs approval. Additionally, each college’s Human Resources Department is responsible for verifying that supervisors review and approve time sheets timely.6 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The District should: 1. Retain documentation for all payroll costs, such as employment agreements or acceptance letters, to demonstrate employees’ salaries and wages are authorized to be charged to federal programs and spent in accordance with the programs’ award terms and conditions. 2. Review the fiscal year 2024 payroll costs for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States and Higher Education—Institutional Aid programs to ensure they were properly supported and spent in accordance with the award terms and conditions and coordinate with the U.S. Department of Education, as necessary, to adjust future federal reimbursement requests or repay any unallowable costs the District charged to the programs. 3. Enforce and train employees on District written procedures and requirements to: a. Retain all public records, including those contained in personnel files, related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor. b. Ensure supervisors review and approve employees’ time sheets, either before payroll is processed or within 3 business days from receiving the payroll email notification that a time sheet needs approval, to verify employees accurately reported their time worked. This review should be performed after the employee performed the work to ensure the payroll costs charged to the programs accurately reflect the work performed and are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. 4. Update District written procedures to require documentation of all employment offers, including offers for temporary employees. The District’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 Arizona Auditor General. (2024). Report on Internal Control and Compliance, June 30, 2024. Phoenix, AZ. https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/MaricopaCountyCommunityCollegeDistrictJune30_2024ReportOnInternalControlAndCompliance.pdf 2 The 14 employee time sheets lacking approval after the work was performed includes 5 time sheets totaling $6,917 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid program that were never approved by a supervisor and 2 time sheets totaling $388 for the Adult Education—Basic Grants to States program and 7 time sheets totaling $3,858 for the Higher Education—Institutional Aid program that were approved by a supervisor between 1 and 7 days prior to the work being performed by the employee. 3 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the District, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 4 Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD). (2023). Staff Policy Manual. 5 Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records. (2023) General Retention Schedule Created for All Public Bodies. Retrieved 3/12/25 from https://apps.azlibrary.gov/files/docs/all_general_schedules_searchable.pdf 6 Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD). Version 1.1 (2019). Monitoring Time Approvals: Monitoring Procedures.
Corporation for National and Community Service, State of Washington – Service Washington, State of California – California Volunteers, State of Kentucky – KY Cabinet of Health and & Family Services, 94.006 AmeriCorps State and National Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Grant Award Number: GCU8PW8ZDXN8, G6Y2ZAMJJRA9, LECJQDCLHVE5, 22ND243641 and 23NDICA001 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.430 provides that records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: Amounts for certain personnel costs were not reimbursed at the correct pay rate for certain employees. Cause: Monthly pay rates used to calculate personnel costs were not consistently applied in accordance with the Organizations methodology. Effect: The Organization underbilled for allowable personnel costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context/sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 2 months of payroll transactions out of a population of 12 was selected for testing, which accounted for $235,655 of $1,372,928 of federal program expenditures. We noted an error in the payroll rates used for 21 individuals out of 44 for a total of $2,257. Report Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend iFoster, Inc. enhance the internal controls over the calculation of personnel costs. Views of Responsible Officials: iFoster, Inc. agrees with this finding; see corrective action plan.
Corporation for National and Community Service, State of Washington – Service Washington, State of California – California Volunteers, State of Kentucky – KY Cabinet of Health and & Family Services, 94.006 AmeriCorps State and National Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Grant Award Number: GCU8PW8ZDXN8, G6Y2ZAMJJRA9, LECJQDCLHVE5, 22ND243641 and 23NDICA001 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.430 provides that records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: Amounts for certain personnel costs were not reimbursed at the correct pay rate for certain employees. Cause: Monthly pay rates used to calculate personnel costs were not consistently applied in accordance with the Organizations methodology. Effect: The Organization underbilled for allowable personnel costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context/sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 2 months of payroll transactions out of a population of 12 was selected for testing, which accounted for $235,655 of $1,372,928 of federal program expenditures. We noted an error in the payroll rates used for 21 individuals out of 44 for a total of $2,257. Report Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend iFoster, Inc. enhance the internal controls over the calculation of personnel costs. Views of Responsible Officials: iFoster, Inc. agrees with this finding; see corrective action plan.
Corporation for National and Community Service, State of Washington – Service Washington, State of California – California Volunteers, State of Kentucky – KY Cabinet of Health and & Family Services, 94.006 AmeriCorps State and National Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Grant Award Number: GCU8PW8ZDXN8, G6Y2ZAMJJRA9, LECJQDCLHVE5, 22ND243641 and 23NDICA001 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.430 provides that records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: Amounts for certain personnel costs were not reimbursed at the correct pay rate for certain employees. Cause: Monthly pay rates used to calculate personnel costs were not consistently applied in accordance with the Organizations methodology. Effect: The Organization underbilled for allowable personnel costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context/sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 2 months of payroll transactions out of a population of 12 was selected for testing, which accounted for $235,655 of $1,372,928 of federal program expenditures. We noted an error in the payroll rates used for 21 individuals out of 44 for a total of $2,257. Report Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend iFoster, Inc. enhance the internal controls over the calculation of personnel costs. Views of Responsible Officials: iFoster, Inc. agrees with this finding; see corrective action plan.
Corporation for National and Community Service, State of Washington – Service Washington, State of California – California Volunteers, State of Kentucky – KY Cabinet of Health and & Family Services, 94.006 AmeriCorps State and National Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Grant Award Number: GCU8PW8ZDXN8, G6Y2ZAMJJRA9, LECJQDCLHVE5, 22ND243641 and 23NDICA001 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.430 provides that records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: Amounts for certain personnel costs were not reimbursed at the correct pay rate for certain employees. Cause: Monthly pay rates used to calculate personnel costs were not consistently applied in accordance with the Organizations methodology. Effect: The Organization underbilled for allowable personnel costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context/sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 2 months of payroll transactions out of a population of 12 was selected for testing, which accounted for $235,655 of $1,372,928 of federal program expenditures. We noted an error in the payroll rates used for 21 individuals out of 44 for a total of $2,257. Report Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend iFoster, Inc. enhance the internal controls over the calculation of personnel costs. Views of Responsible Officials: iFoster, Inc. agrees with this finding; see corrective action plan.
Corporation for National and Community Service, State of Washington – Service Washington, State of California – California Volunteers, State of Kentucky – KY Cabinet of Health and & Family Services, 94.006 AmeriCorps State and National Allowable Costs/Costs Principles Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance Grant Award Number: GCU8PW8ZDXN8, G6Y2ZAMJJRA9, LECJQDCLHVE5, 22ND243641 and 23NDICA001 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.430 provides that records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: Amounts for certain personnel costs were not reimbursed at the correct pay rate for certain employees. Cause: Monthly pay rates used to calculate personnel costs were not consistently applied in accordance with the Organizations methodology. Effect: The Organization underbilled for allowable personnel costs. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context/sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 2 months of payroll transactions out of a population of 12 was selected for testing, which accounted for $235,655 of $1,372,928 of federal program expenditures. We noted an error in the payroll rates used for 21 individuals out of 44 for a total of $2,257. Report Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, prior year finding 2023-004. Recommendation: We recommend iFoster, Inc. enhance the internal controls over the calculation of personnel costs. Views of Responsible Officials: iFoster, Inc. agrees with this finding; see corrective action plan.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.
2024-018. USU Extension Extra Services Compensation Program Non-Compliance with Uniform Guidance (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency, Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Various Assistance Listing Number and Title: Various Federal Award Number: Various Questioned Costs: Undetermined Pass-through Entity: Various Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A Utah State University’s (University) Internal Audit performed a review of the University’s Extension Service (Extension) within the College of Agriculture and Applied Science. The review determined that Extension’s Extra Service Compensation (ESC) program violates Uniform Guidance requirements and University policy, bypasses critical internal controls, and provides employees with additional compensation for extra-service work related to their primary job duties without sponsor approval. Extension’s mission, under the University’s land grant mission, provides research-based programs and resources to Utah’s population using a mix of local, state, federal and sponsored funding. To incentivize its personnel to apply for grants, Extension created an ESC program that allowed personnel to replace a portion of their primary position institution-funded salary with grant-funded salary. Personnel could then request up to 20 percent of their primary position salary through an ESC secondary position funded with the replaced institution-funded salary. However, Extension’s justified purpose for the ESC secondary position was “caused by and associated with the grant.” In doing so, Extension made it possible to bypass the University’s policy and internal controls for extra-service pay by obscuring the work duties and funding source for the secondary position. Below is an illustrative example from the USU Internal Audit Report of an ESC professor with an institutional base salary of $50,000: Payment to Employee Before Receiving Award (Source: USU Internal Audit Report IAS-23-53) Uniform Guidance maintains strict requirements with regard to the allowability of compensation, including special consideration for substantial increases, particularly with: • federal award ratios (2 CFR 200.430(e)), • institutional base salary charges, including federal award proportionate shares (2 CFR 200.430(h)(2)), • prior approvals by federal awarding agencies for incidental activities with supplemental compensation (2 CFR 200.430(h)(1)), • intra-institution consulting within higher education (2 CFR 200.430(h)(3)), • institutional policy definitions to conclusively determine work resulting in extra service pay (2 CFR 200.430(h)(4), and • relevant internal controls (2 CFR 200.302(b)(4). Internal Audit cites that the ESC program does not comply with Uniform Guidance, as well as University policy (Extra-Service Compensation Policy 376), which formalizes the University’s approach to compliance with Uniform Guidance for these activities. Internal Audit identified that University personnel did not follow or were unfamiliar with established policies in addition to procedural changes that did not require sufficient level of documentation for proper approvals. Detailed fieldwork by Internal Audit identified instances of questioned costs for funding (both federal and non-federal) in excess of $25,000. Fieldwork covered the period between January 1, 2020 and June 14, 2023, but also identified evidence of noncompliance as far back as 2009 to 2018. After Internal Audit issued its report in September 2024, the University took action to begin determining the potential financial impact of noncompliance through an external third-party. A report by this external third-party has not been completed as of the date of this finding; therefore, the amount of questioned costs related to federal programs cannot be determined. The University has also taken steps to immediately address policy and control deficiencies across the institution. Recommendations: We recommend the University do the following relative to University-wide procedures: 1. Determine the potential financial impact of noncompliance with grant sponsors. 2. Evaluate and improve its policies and required documentation for extra-service compensation. 3. Evaluate and improve its internal controls for sponsored program compensation. 4. Provide adequate training to University personnel regarding sponsored programs compensation compliance. USU’s Response: Utah State University (“USU”) generally agrees with Finding One. As detailed in USU internal audit IAS-23-53, USU Extension established a program to incentivize and reward its personnel to apply for grants (referred to by Extension and within USU internal audit IAS-23-53 as the “incentive program”). While the Uniform Guidance permits incentive programs (see CFR 200.430(f)) and such programs are readily used by universities, the USU Extension incentive program was established and carried out in manner that violated USU’s policy governing extra service compensation (“ESC”) and in a manner that bypassed critical internal controls. Notably, USU Internal Audit IAS-23-53 tested compliance with USU’s extra-service compensation policy but did not review actual costs charged to federal sponsors as this was outside the scope of the audit. Consistent with the recommendations to determine the potential impact of noncompliance, USU worked with an outside consultant to review payment of ESC to all employees working on federal grants. This work identified (1) limited instances when salaries directly charged to sponsored projects included extra service compensation in the base salary and (2) limited instances when extra service compensation was charged to federal sponsors without sponsor approval. The majority of ESC payments made pursuant the USU Extension incentive program was not charged to grant sponsor or included in the institutional base salary charged to the grant. Accordingly, noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance clauses related to compensation costs was limited to a small subset of payments made under the USU Extension incentive program. Based on these findings, USU agrees with the corrective actions recommended and, as outlined in the corrective action plan summary below, has already completed and/or initiated these actions.