Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Questioned costs: $1,903,858 Assistance Listing number and name: 84.425C COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund Award numbers and years: S425C200052, June 2, 2020 through September 30, 2022; S425C210052, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Questioned costs: Unknown Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Condition—The Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (Office) awarded $135.1 million to 334 SLFRF program subrecipients and $10.2 million to 10 GEER program subrecipients during fiscal year 2023, or 88 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of each of the Office’s federal program expenditures, but did not perform all required risk assessments to assess whether its monitoring procedures were sufficient to evaluate whether subrecipients used program monies in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Specifically, risk assessments were not performed for 37 of 42 SLFRF program subrecipients and 5 of 5 GEER program subrecipients tested. Effect—The Office’s delay in performing required risk assessments did not allow the Office to properly design and prioritize its monitoring efforts, resulting in the Office not timely identifying questioned costs of approximately $1,903,858 for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements.1 The Office identified several of these questioned costs as potentially inappropriate and has forwarded this information to the Attorney General’s Office for further review. As a result, the Office may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistent with program requirements, those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the services or other benefits they otherwise would have received. Subrecipient program expenditures are not related to the revenue loss expenditure category. Cause—Office management reported that it hired additional staff in fiscal year 2023 to begin addressing issues noted in prior year findings 2022-104 and 2022-10 but had not done so in time to complete required risk assessments for the more than 300 SLFRF program and 10 GEER program subrecipients.3 Criteria—Federal regulation requires the Office to monitor subrecipients, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. This federal regulation also provides that monitoring procedures may include reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on-site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures (2 CFR §200.332[b] and [e]). Further, Office policy requires an annual risk assessment of open, active subawards to determine which subawards will be selected for review and monitoring priority (Grants Management Manual – Grantor, Chapter 8 – Award Monitoring). Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the federal program is being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Office should: 1. Ensure it performs required monitoring of its subrecipients and their compliance with the award terms and program requirements by following its established policies and procedures to assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance annually and carry out monitoring activities based on those risk assessments such as reviewing financial and performance reports, providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters, and performing on site reviews, selective audits, and/or other monitoring procedures. 2. Continue to assess its resources, such as staffing, to perform required risk assessments and monitoring procedures to comply with the award terms and program requirements. 3. Work with the federal agency and the subrecipients to resolve the $1,903,858 of program monies that may have been spent in violation of its federal award terms and that may need to be returned to the federal agency.2 The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. This finding is similar to prior-year findings 2022-104 (GEER) and 2022-106 (SLFRF) and were initially reported in fiscal years 2021 (GEER) and 2022 (SLFRF). 1 The Office reported during fiscal year 2024 it began performing missing risk assessments for subrecipients awarded monies during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that were not completed by June 30, 2023, and is currently conducting additional onsite monitoring or desk reviews based on those results. As of the report date, December 17, 2024, the Office identified and reported to us approximately $1,903,858 of expenditures for 3 SLFRF program subrecipients that may not have been spent in accordance with program requirements. Since the Office is still performing monitoring procedures for subaward monies spent during fiscal year 2023, there may be additional questioned costs that the Office has not identified. 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Office, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Arizona Auditor General. (2023). State of Arizona June 30, 2022, Single Audit Report. Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved 08/13/2024 from https://www.azauditor.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/StateOfArizonaJune30_2022SingleAudit.pdf
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).