Assistance Listing, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 66.818, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements; 21.027, U.S. Department of the Treasury, COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Award Identification Number and Year - ALN 21.027 SLFRP0127 Pass through Entity - ALN 21.027 - State of Michigan Finding Type - Material weakness Repeat Finding - Yes 2023-002 Criteria - The Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance require a nonfederal entity that expends $750,000 or more of federal awards in a fiscal year to have a single or program-specific audit. 2 CFR §200.508 (b) indicates that the auditee must prepare financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with 2 CFR §200.510. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.502 describes the basis for determining the timing of when federal awards are deemed expended and, therefore, reportable on the schedule. Condition - The schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) was not accurate. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024, the City expended approximately $2,831,000 of federal funding. The initial draft of the SEFA included the following inaccuracies: ALN 66.818 - The expenditures reported on the SEFA were understated by $148,474. ALN 21.027 - The expenditures reported on the SEFA were overstated by $2,078,221. The SEFA was also ovestated by $116,625 related to a non federal program. The errors noted above have been corrected on the SEFA as of September 30, 2024. Cause and Effect - Controls in place did not ensure the SEFA was complete and accurate for the fiscal period under audit. The errors resulted in the overstatement of federal expenditures. Recommendation - We recommend the City implement a process to ensure that the SEFA is complete and accurate. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - The City will review its process for identifying and communicating federal grant expenditures to its auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2024-002: Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Federal Agency: Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration Federal Program: Grads2Careers, Center for Sustainable Careers - Building Pathways, Center for Sustainable Careers - Critical Sector Job Quality, Baltimore Shines, Clean Corps, Baltimore Community Canopy Initiative, Administration for Community Living Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 21.027, 17.268, 17.280, 10.727, 93.071 Compliance Requirement: ReportingType of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a SEFA that includes total Federal expenditures, the name of the Federal agency, the Assistance Listing Number, and other identifying information. The SEFA must be accurate, complete, and prepared in accordance with the Uniform Guidance to facilitate the Single Audit. Condition: During our audit of the SEFA for the year ended September 30, 2024, we noted that the initial SEFA provided by management contained material inaccuracies. Specifically, we noted that certain programs were omitted entirely, several expenditures were incorrectly classified under the wrong Assistance Listing Number, and certain programs had expenditures that were inaccurately reported. Cause: The inaccuracies in the SEFA were primarily due to a lack of formalized procedures and oversight in the SEFA preparation process. Management relied on manual compilation without a reconciliation or review step. Effect or Potential Effect: An incomplete or inaccurate SEFA may result in inadequate audit coverage, potential noncompliance with Federal reporting requirements, and increased risk of questioned costs or funding disallowances. Questioned Costs: None Context: The initial SEFA provided for audit included approximately $8.4 million in Federal expenditures. During the audit process, audit procedures identified approximately $1.05 million in Federal expenditures that were omitted, as well as classification errors affecting roughly 10% of the total reported expenditures. The SEFA was subsequently revised and corrected by management. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that management implement formal procedures for compiling the SEFA, including a reconciliation of expenditures to the general ledger, review of all grant agreements for required disclosures, and a documented supervisory review prior to finalization. Staff involved in Federal grant reporting should also receive training on SEFA requirements under Uniform Guidance.
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-001 U.S. Department of the Treasury Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Equitable Recovery Program (CDFI ERP) Assistance Listing No. 21.033 Criteria – 2 CFR 200.510(b) of the Uniform Guidance states that the auditee is responsible for preparing the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). 2 CFR 200.302(b) of the Uniform Guidance states that a nonfederal entity must identify in its accounts all federal awards received and expended, as well as the federal programs under which they were received, and those amounts must be accurately and completely reported on the SEFA. Condition – The Organization consists of Hawaiian Community Assets, Inc. (HCA) and its subsidiary Hawaii Community Lending, Inc. (HCL). The CDFI ERP program is managed by HCL. During the year ended September 30, 2024, HCL used the CDFI ERP grant award amount of $500,000 to fund seven loans. Subsequent to the fiscal year end, but prior to the audit, HCL determined the borrower for five of the seven loans, totaling approximately $299,882, did not meet the geographical eligibility requirements. HCL was able to identify other non-federal funding to fund the five loans deemed ineligible and made the necessary corrections in its grant reporting to the federal agency. However, HCL did not make corrections to its accounting records and SEFA. Cause – HCL did not have a process in place to ensure the accurate reporting of its federal expenditures in its SEFA. Effect or Potential Effect – Federal expenditures are over/under reported or in the wrong fiscal period. A federal program may be misidentified as a major or non-major program and thus, may be improperly included or excluded from required audit procedures. Questioned Costs – None. Context – Total federal expenditures in the SEFA were reduced from $7,459,199 to $7,159,317. CDFI ERP expenditures were reduced from $500,000 to $200,118. The CDFI ERP grant award period does not end until September 30, 2028 and HCL has $299,882 remaining in CDFI ERP funding to fund future loans to borrowers who meet the eligibility requirements. Recommendation – HCL should implement procedures to ensure accurate reporting of its federal expenditures in its SEFA, including having an appropriate member of management review the SEFA. Responsible Official’s Response and Corrective Action Planned – Refer to the Corrective Action Plan.
2024-003 ─ Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Cluster (ALN No. 20.507) Federal award year 2023 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the period covered by the auditee’s financial statements which must include the total federal awards expended as determined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502. 2 CFR Section 200.502(a) states that the determination of when a federal award is expended should be based on when the activity related to the federal award occurs. Generally, the activity pertains to events that require the non-federal entity to comply with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards, such as expenditure/expense transactions associated with grant awards. Condition: We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) provided to the auditors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024 included $56,503,870 of federal expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster, assistance listing number 20.507, that should have been included in the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The County executed an ARPA transportation grant in September 2023 for which prior year eligible incurred costs were applied, however, these expenditures were not reported on the County’s Schedule until FY 2024. The Schedule for fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 was reissued to include the $56,503,870 and the expenditures were removed from the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Context: The finding is considered isolated in nature to the federal program in question. Effect: Improper reporting of federal expenditures resulted in a material error on the Schedule. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes (2023-006) Cause: The department directly administering this grant did not realize they had to immediately recognize the expenditures associated with the grant at the time of grant award when the decision was made to apply prior eligible incurred costs. The transaction was not recorded until the reimbursement request was submitted in fiscal year 2024. Recommendation: Grant activities including general ledger activity should be reconciled by the departments managing the programs and the information communicated timely to the Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB). Depending on the nature and size of the grant programs these reconciliations could occur, monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on what is most efficient in each individual situation. Also additional training could be provided to help enhance the understanding of grant personnel around some of the important nuances of revenue and expenditure recognition criteria the County must comply with in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles so they provide OFMB with sufficient information to prepare the end of year Schedule or so they can ask questions of OFMB and County Finance and seek assistance for any matters they are unsure of how to process.
2024-003 ─ Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Cluster (ALN No. 20.507) Federal award year 2023 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the period covered by the auditee’s financial statements which must include the total federal awards expended as determined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502. 2 CFR Section 200.502(a) states that the determination of when a federal award is expended should be based on when the activity related to the federal award occurs. Generally, the activity pertains to events that require the non-federal entity to comply with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards, such as expenditure/expense transactions associated with grant awards. Condition: We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) provided to the auditors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024 included $56,503,870 of federal expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster, assistance listing number 20.507, that should have been included in the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The County executed an ARPA transportation grant in September 2023 for which prior year eligible incurred costs were applied, however, these expenditures were not reported on the County’s Schedule until FY 2024. The Schedule for fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 was reissued to include the $56,503,870 and the expenditures were removed from the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Context: The finding is considered isolated in nature to the federal program in question. Effect: Improper reporting of federal expenditures resulted in a material error on the Schedule. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes (2023-006) Cause: The department directly administering this grant did not realize they had to immediately recognize the expenditures associated with the grant at the time of grant award when the decision was made to apply prior eligible incurred costs. The transaction was not recorded until the reimbursement request was submitted in fiscal year 2024. Recommendation: Grant activities including general ledger activity should be reconciled by the departments managing the programs and the information communicated timely to the Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB). Depending on the nature and size of the grant programs these reconciliations could occur, monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on what is most efficient in each individual situation. Also additional training could be provided to help enhance the understanding of grant personnel around some of the important nuances of revenue and expenditure recognition criteria the County must comply with in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles so they provide OFMB with sufficient information to prepare the end of year Schedule or so they can ask questions of OFMB and County Finance and seek assistance for any matters they are unsure of how to process.
2024-003 ─ Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Cluster (ALN No. 20.507) Federal award year 2023 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the period covered by the auditee’s financial statements which must include the total federal awards expended as determined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502. 2 CFR Section 200.502(a) states that the determination of when a federal award is expended should be based on when the activity related to the federal award occurs. Generally, the activity pertains to events that require the non-federal entity to comply with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards, such as expenditure/expense transactions associated with grant awards. Condition: We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) provided to the auditors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024 included $56,503,870 of federal expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster, assistance listing number 20.507, that should have been included in the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The County executed an ARPA transportation grant in September 2023 for which prior year eligible incurred costs were applied, however, these expenditures were not reported on the County’s Schedule until FY 2024. The Schedule for fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 was reissued to include the $56,503,870 and the expenditures were removed from the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Context: The finding is considered isolated in nature to the federal program in question. Effect: Improper reporting of federal expenditures resulted in a material error on the Schedule. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes (2023-006) Cause: The department directly administering this grant did not realize they had to immediately recognize the expenditures associated with the grant at the time of grant award when the decision was made to apply prior eligible incurred costs. The transaction was not recorded until the reimbursement request was submitted in fiscal year 2024. Recommendation: Grant activities including general ledger activity should be reconciled by the departments managing the programs and the information communicated timely to the Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB). Depending on the nature and size of the grant programs these reconciliations could occur, monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on what is most efficient in each individual situation. Also additional training could be provided to help enhance the understanding of grant personnel around some of the important nuances of revenue and expenditure recognition criteria the County must comply with in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles so they provide OFMB with sufficient information to prepare the end of year Schedule or so they can ask questions of OFMB and County Finance and seek assistance for any matters they are unsure of how to process.
2024-003 ─ Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Cluster (ALN No. 20.507) Federal award year 2023 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the period covered by the auditee’s financial statements which must include the total federal awards expended as determined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502. 2 CFR Section 200.502(a) states that the determination of when a federal award is expended should be based on when the activity related to the federal award occurs. Generally, the activity pertains to events that require the non-federal entity to comply with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards, such as expenditure/expense transactions associated with grant awards. Condition: We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) provided to the auditors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024 included $56,503,870 of federal expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster, assistance listing number 20.507, that should have been included in the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The County executed an ARPA transportation grant in September 2023 for which prior year eligible incurred costs were applied, however, these expenditures were not reported on the County’s Schedule until FY 2024. The Schedule for fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 was reissued to include the $56,503,870 and the expenditures were removed from the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Context: The finding is considered isolated in nature to the federal program in question. Effect: Improper reporting of federal expenditures resulted in a material error on the Schedule. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes (2023-006) Cause: The department directly administering this grant did not realize they had to immediately recognize the expenditures associated with the grant at the time of grant award when the decision was made to apply prior eligible incurred costs. The transaction was not recorded until the reimbursement request was submitted in fiscal year 2024. Recommendation: Grant activities including general ledger activity should be reconciled by the departments managing the programs and the information communicated timely to the Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB). Depending on the nature and size of the grant programs these reconciliations could occur, monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on what is most efficient in each individual situation. Also additional training could be provided to help enhance the understanding of grant personnel around some of the important nuances of revenue and expenditure recognition criteria the County must comply with in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles so they provide OFMB with sufficient information to prepare the end of year Schedule or so they can ask questions of OFMB and County Finance and seek assistance for any matters they are unsure of how to process.
2024-003 ─ Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Cluster (ALN No. 20.507) Federal award year 2023 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510(b), the auditee must prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the period covered by the auditee’s financial statements which must include the total federal awards expended as determined in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502. 2 CFR Section 200.502(a) states that the determination of when a federal award is expended should be based on when the activity related to the federal award occurs. Generally, the activity pertains to events that require the non-federal entity to comply with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards, such as expenditure/expense transactions associated with grant awards. Condition: We noted that the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance (Schedule) provided to the auditors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024 included $56,503,870 of federal expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster, assistance listing number 20.507, that should have been included in the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023. The County executed an ARPA transportation grant in September 2023 for which prior year eligible incurred costs were applied, however, these expenditures were not reported on the County’s Schedule until FY 2024. The Schedule for fiscal year ended September 30, 2023 was reissued to include the $56,503,870 and the expenditures were removed from the Schedule for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024. Context: The finding is considered isolated in nature to the federal program in question. Effect: Improper reporting of federal expenditures resulted in a material error on the Schedule. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes (2023-006) Cause: The department directly administering this grant did not realize they had to immediately recognize the expenditures associated with the grant at the time of grant award when the decision was made to apply prior eligible incurred costs. The transaction was not recorded until the reimbursement request was submitted in fiscal year 2024. Recommendation: Grant activities including general ledger activity should be reconciled by the departments managing the programs and the information communicated timely to the Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB). Depending on the nature and size of the grant programs these reconciliations could occur, monthly, quarterly or yearly, depending on what is most efficient in each individual situation. Also additional training could be provided to help enhance the understanding of grant personnel around some of the important nuances of revenue and expenditure recognition criteria the County must comply with in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles so they provide OFMB with sufficient information to prepare the end of year Schedule or so they can ask questions of OFMB and County Finance and seek assistance for any matters they are unsure of how to process.