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 numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, eligibility, earmarking, and special tests and provisions Questioned costs: $8,696 Condition—During fiscal year 2023, the Arizona Department of Education’s Title I Department (Department) allocated and disbursed over $354.6 million and over $43.6 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to local educational agencies (LEAs). However, contrary to federal requirements, the Department did not consider 110 Special LEAs (charter schools) for eligibility for federal Title I funding and 109 charter schools for federal Title II funding that may have been eligible and thus should have been included in its funding allocation calculations. Further, the Department included 6 ineligible LEAs in its Title II funding allocation calculation. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) awarded these Title I and Title II funds to the Department in October 2021, and they were allocated (specific grant amounts determined by the Department using statutory formulas) in April 2022, with the official grant period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023. The Title I and Title II funds the Department allocated to the LEAs were then considered obligated (reserved) and could be disbursed (paid) by the Department each month after it received and processed a reimbursement request from an LEA. Effect—The Department’s Title I and Title II awards to LEAs may be inaccurate. Specifically: • 519 Title I and 550 Title II LEAs likely received more funds than they were entitled to. We were unable to determine the actual questioned cost as we could not determine the individual amount of over- or underpayment for each LEA without the Department recalculating the allocation, including gathering census data and poverty data for the 110 Title I charter schools and 109 Title II charter schools that were not considered for eligibility and not part of the original allocation. The Department stated that the recalculation process would require the use of historical census, and enrollment and would be an overly arduous process. For these reasons, the Department chose to focus on correcting and overhauling the allocation process for fiscal year 2024 and forward. • 110 Title I and 109 Title II charter school LEAs not part of the original allocation and referenced above may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students in fiscal year 2023 if the Department had appropriately evaluated and determined them to be eligible for Title I and Title II disbursements. • $8,696 of Title II funds awarded to 6 ineligible LEAs may require repayment to the USDE.1 Further, future Title I and Title II funding could be affected if the USDE requires the Department to recalculate the fiscal year 2023 allocations and provide subsequent funding to those entities that were eligible but did not receive funding. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite federal laws requiring the Department to allocate fiscal year 2023 Title I and Title II funds to LEAs beginning in July 2023, including charter schools, and detailed federal guidance on how to adjust the USDE allocations for new or significantly expanded charter schools, the Department lacked detailed procedures and reported that it only evaluated charter schools for inclusion in its allocation calculations upon direct requests from the schools, rather than evaluating charter schools annually. Specifically, the Department reported that it did not add charter schools to the list of eligible LEAs during their first year of operation or when the LEAs’ enrollment significantly expanded because Department staff used the prior fiscal year listing of eligible LEAs. The Department also did not perform a supervisory review and approval of this listing to ensure all eligible LEAs were properly included and evaluated. Further, Department staff responsible for the administration and execution of Title I and Title II grants during fiscal year 2023 were no longer employed by the Department at the time of the audit, and current leadership reported they were unaware of what policies and procedures were followed during the grant-allocation process due to out-of-date and incomplete policies and procedures and because the grant allocation process for fiscal year 2023 was performed prior to their hire. Specifically, the program administrator responsible for the allocation of grant funds was no longer employed by the Department as of April 20, 2023, 2 months before the end of the LEA grant period. As of this date, preliminary allocations for fiscal year 2024 had been calculated and were able to be adjusted by current Department staff. Due to the timing of the adjustments the Department implemented, the results of the changes in procedures for the fiscal year 2024 allocation will be reviewed for accuracy and compliance in the 2024 Single Audit Report. Lastly, the 6 ineligible LEAs that received Title II funds were Educational Service Agencies, such as a Juvenile Detention Center, that were ineligible for the funds due to the classification of their educational programs or organizational structure. When determining eligibility for these entities, the Department incorrectly classified the entities as public schools and therefore incorrectly deemed them eligible, resulting in $8,696 in improper payments. Criteria—Federal laws require the Department to use a statutory formula to annually allocate Title I and Title II funds to LEAs, including charter schools, based on the number of children from low-income families attending them who meet the eligibility requirements established by the USDE (20 USC §§6303, 6303b, 6304, 6333-6337). Public schools are defined as eligible LEAs in accordance with 34 USC 303.23(a) and A.R.S. §§15-101 and 15-913. In addition, federal laws and guidance require the Department to provide Title I and Title II funding to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment (20 USC §7221e). 2,3 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 Department should: 1. Ensure the allocation of Title I and Title II funds is based on statutory formula and eligibility requirements and that awards are made to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment by developing and implementing detailed allocation policies and procedures. 2. Ensure that staff responsible for the allocation and performance of grant objectives are adequately supervised and managed by knowledgeable supervisors who have the understanding and training to review and approve allocation calculations prior to Title I and Title II disbursements being made to LEAs. 3. Work with the USDE to determine if it will require the Department to recalculate the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct the amounts paid to LEAs. 4. Work with the 6 ineligible LEAs that received funding to determine if the amounts disbursed should be repaid and how the LEAs can reimburse the Department for these unallowable costs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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). 2 Significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the state educational agency (SEA) determines to be significant (34 CFR §78.787). 3 U.S. Department of Education. (November 21, 2016). Non-regulatory Guidance: Fiscal Changes and Equitable Services Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved 08/26/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/essaguidance160477.pdf
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Level of effort Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 without completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations and reducing grant funding when necessary as required by federal law. Specifically, the Department did not evaluate and reduce grant monies awarded to any charter school that failed to meet required spending levels (maintain fiscal effort) for more than once in a 5-year period. Effect—The Department’s not completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations for charter schools increased the risk that charter schools may have received current or future grant funding through fiscal year 2028 they are not entitled to and may require repayment to the U.S. Department of Education.1 Further, other LEAs may have been entitled to additional grant monies and may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department relied on its grant-management system to automatically calculate maintenance-of-effort without ensuring all necessary data was included in the calculations. The Department performs these maintenance-of-effort calculations on April 1 of each year using the prior-year data from the LEAs’ Financial Audit Report. Specifically, the Department reported that it changed where it stored the charter schools’ financial information in fiscal year 2023 but did not adjust grant-management system criteria to include the data in the maintenance-of-effort calculations run on April 1, 2023. Further, Department staff did not review the maintenance-of-effort calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. Criteria—Federal law requires the Department to disburse Title I and Title II grant monies to LEAs, including charter schools, only if maintenance-of-effort requirements are met. Specifically, the Department must calculate and verify that the combined fiscal effort per student or the LEA’s aggregate expenditures from State and local funds for free public education for the preceding year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding year. If the LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort, federal law requires the Department to reduce the LEA’s allocation under a covered program if the LEA also failed to maintain effort in 1 or more of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years in exact proportion by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (20 USC 7901). Also, 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 Department should: 1. Evaluate and reduce Title I and Title II funds annually for any LEA, including charter schools, that failed to maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. 2. Develop and implement maintenance-of-effort policies and procedures that include verifying that its grants management system’s maintenance-of-effort calculations include necessary data for all applicable LEAs, including charter schools, and to review the calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. 3. Determine if any LEAs, including charter schools, received funding they were not entitled to by completing the missing fiscal year 2023 charter school maintenance-of-effort calculations and identifying any LEAs that did not maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. If improper payments were made, work with the U.S. Department of Education to determine if they will require the Department to reperform the allocation of Title I and Title II benefits for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct any errors, if applicable, for the amounts paid to LEAs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently 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. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide 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 d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, 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 Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, 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. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. 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 term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, eligibility, earmarking, and special tests and provisions Questioned costs: $8,696 Condition—During fiscal year 2023, the Arizona Department of Education’s Title I Department (Department) allocated and disbursed over $354.6 million and over $43.6 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to local educational agencies (LEAs). However, contrary to federal requirements, the Department did not consider 110 Special LEAs (charter schools) for eligibility for federal Title I funding and 109 charter schools for federal Title II funding that may have been eligible and thus should have been included in its funding allocation calculations. Further, the Department included 6 ineligible LEAs in its Title II funding allocation calculation. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) awarded these Title I and Title II funds to the Department in October 2021, and they were allocated (specific grant amounts determined by the Department using statutory formulas) in April 2022, with the official grant period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023. The Title I and Title II funds the Department allocated to the LEAs were then considered obligated (reserved) and could be disbursed (paid) by the Department each month after it received and processed a reimbursement request from an LEA. Effect—The Department’s Title I and Title II awards to LEAs may be inaccurate. Specifically: • 519 Title I and 550 Title II LEAs likely received more funds than they were entitled to. We were unable to determine the actual questioned cost as we could not determine the individual amount of over- or underpayment for each LEA without the Department recalculating the allocation, including gathering census data and poverty data for the 110 Title I charter schools and 109 Title II charter schools that were not considered for eligibility and not part of the original allocation. The Department stated that the recalculation process would require the use of historical census, and enrollment and would be an overly arduous process. For these reasons, the Department chose to focus on correcting and overhauling the allocation process for fiscal year 2024 and forward. • 110 Title I and 109 Title II charter school LEAs not part of the original allocation and referenced above may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students in fiscal year 2023 if the Department had appropriately evaluated and determined them to be eligible for Title I and Title II disbursements. • $8,696 of Title II funds awarded to 6 ineligible LEAs may require repayment to the USDE.1 Further, future Title I and Title II funding could be affected if the USDE requires the Department to recalculate the fiscal year 2023 allocations and provide subsequent funding to those entities that were eligible but did not receive funding. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite federal laws requiring the Department to allocate fiscal year 2023 Title I and Title II funds to LEAs beginning in July 2023, including charter schools, and detailed federal guidance on how to adjust the USDE allocations for new or significantly expanded charter schools, the Department lacked detailed procedures and reported that it only evaluated charter schools for inclusion in its allocation calculations upon direct requests from the schools, rather than evaluating charter schools annually. Specifically, the Department reported that it did not add charter schools to the list of eligible LEAs during their first year of operation or when the LEAs’ enrollment significantly expanded because Department staff used the prior fiscal year listing of eligible LEAs. The Department also did not perform a supervisory review and approval of this listing to ensure all eligible LEAs were properly included and evaluated. Further, Department staff responsible for the administration and execution of Title I and Title II grants during fiscal year 2023 were no longer employed by the Department at the time of the audit, and current leadership reported they were unaware of what policies and procedures were followed during the grant-allocation process due to out-of-date and incomplete policies and procedures and because the grant allocation process for fiscal year 2023 was performed prior to their hire. Specifically, the program administrator responsible for the allocation of grant funds was no longer employed by the Department as of April 20, 2023, 2 months before the end of the LEA grant period. As of this date, preliminary allocations for fiscal year 2024 had been calculated and were able to be adjusted by current Department staff. Due to the timing of the adjustments the Department implemented, the results of the changes in procedures for the fiscal year 2024 allocation will be reviewed for accuracy and compliance in the 2024 Single Audit Report. Lastly, the 6 ineligible LEAs that received Title II funds were Educational Service Agencies, such as a Juvenile Detention Center, that were ineligible for the funds due to the classification of their educational programs or organizational structure. When determining eligibility for these entities, the Department incorrectly classified the entities as public schools and therefore incorrectly deemed them eligible, resulting in $8,696 in improper payments. Criteria—Federal laws require the Department to use a statutory formula to annually allocate Title I and Title II funds to LEAs, including charter schools, based on the number of children from low-income families attending them who meet the eligibility requirements established by the USDE (20 USC §§6303, 6303b, 6304, 6333-6337). Public schools are defined as eligible LEAs in accordance with 34 USC 303.23(a) and A.R.S. §§15-101 and 15-913. In addition, federal laws and guidance require the Department to provide Title I and Title II funding to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment (20 USC §7221e). 2,3 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 Department should: 1. Ensure the allocation of Title I and Title II funds is based on statutory formula and eligibility requirements and that awards are made to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment by developing and implementing detailed allocation policies and procedures. 2. Ensure that staff responsible for the allocation and performance of grant objectives are adequately supervised and managed by knowledgeable supervisors who have the understanding and training to review and approve allocation calculations prior to Title I and Title II disbursements being made to LEAs. 3. Work with the USDE to determine if it will require the Department to recalculate the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct the amounts paid to LEAs. 4. Work with the 6 ineligible LEAs that received funding to determine if the amounts disbursed should be repaid and how the LEAs can reimburse the Department for these unallowable costs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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). 2 Significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the state educational agency (SEA) determines to be significant (34 CFR §78.787). 3 U.S. Department of Education. (November 21, 2016). Non-regulatory Guidance: Fiscal Changes and Equitable Services Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved 08/26/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/essaguidance160477.pdf
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Level of effort Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 without completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations and reducing grant funding when necessary as required by federal law. Specifically, the Department did not evaluate and reduce grant monies awarded to any charter school that failed to meet required spending levels (maintain fiscal effort) for more than once in a 5-year period. Effect—The Department’s not completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations for charter schools increased the risk that charter schools may have received current or future grant funding through fiscal year 2028 they are not entitled to and may require repayment to the U.S. Department of Education.1 Further, other LEAs may have been entitled to additional grant monies and may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department relied on its grant-management system to automatically calculate maintenance-of-effort without ensuring all necessary data was included in the calculations. The Department performs these maintenance-of-effort calculations on April 1 of each year using the prior-year data from the LEAs’ Financial Audit Report. Specifically, the Department reported that it changed where it stored the charter schools’ financial information in fiscal year 2023 but did not adjust grant-management system criteria to include the data in the maintenance-of-effort calculations run on April 1, 2023. Further, Department staff did not review the maintenance-of-effort calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. Criteria—Federal law requires the Department to disburse Title I and Title II grant monies to LEAs, including charter schools, only if maintenance-of-effort requirements are met. Specifically, the Department must calculate and verify that the combined fiscal effort per student or the LEA’s aggregate expenditures from State and local funds for free public education for the preceding year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding year. If the LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort, federal law requires the Department to reduce the LEA’s allocation under a covered program if the LEA also failed to maintain effort in 1 or more of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years in exact proportion by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (20 USC 7901). Also, 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 Department should: 1. Evaluate and reduce Title I and Title II funds annually for any LEA, including charter schools, that failed to maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. 2. Develop and implement maintenance-of-effort policies and procedures that include verifying that its grants management system’s maintenance-of-effort calculations include necessary data for all applicable LEAs, including charter schools, and to review the calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. 3. Determine if any LEAs, including charter schools, received funding they were not entitled to by completing the missing fiscal year 2023 charter school maintenance-of-effort calculations and identifying any LEAs that did not maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. If improper payments were made, work with the U.S. Department of Education to determine if they will require the Department to reperform the allocation of Title I and Title II benefits for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct any errors, if applicable, for the amounts paid to LEAs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently 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. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide 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 d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, 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 Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, 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. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. 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 term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, eligibility, earmarking, and special tests and provisions Questioned costs: $8,696 Condition—During fiscal year 2023, the Arizona Department of Education’s Title I Department (Department) allocated and disbursed over $354.6 million and over $43.6 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to local educational agencies (LEAs). However, contrary to federal requirements, the Department did not consider 110 Special LEAs (charter schools) for eligibility for federal Title I funding and 109 charter schools for federal Title II funding that may have been eligible and thus should have been included in its funding allocation calculations. Further, the Department included 6 ineligible LEAs in its Title II funding allocation calculation. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) awarded these Title I and Title II funds to the Department in October 2021, and they were allocated (specific grant amounts determined by the Department using statutory formulas) in April 2022, with the official grant period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023. The Title I and Title II funds the Department allocated to the LEAs were then considered obligated (reserved) and could be disbursed (paid) by the Department each month after it received and processed a reimbursement request from an LEA. Effect—The Department’s Title I and Title II awards to LEAs may be inaccurate. Specifically: • 519 Title I and 550 Title II LEAs likely received more funds than they were entitled to. We were unable to determine the actual questioned cost as we could not determine the individual amount of over- or underpayment for each LEA without the Department recalculating the allocation, including gathering census data and poverty data for the 110 Title I charter schools and 109 Title II charter schools that were not considered for eligibility and not part of the original allocation. The Department stated that the recalculation process would require the use of historical census, and enrollment and would be an overly arduous process. For these reasons, the Department chose to focus on correcting and overhauling the allocation process for fiscal year 2024 and forward. • 110 Title I and 109 Title II charter school LEAs not part of the original allocation and referenced above may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students in fiscal year 2023 if the Department had appropriately evaluated and determined them to be eligible for Title I and Title II disbursements. • $8,696 of Title II funds awarded to 6 ineligible LEAs may require repayment to the USDE.1 Further, future Title I and Title II funding could be affected if the USDE requires the Department to recalculate the fiscal year 2023 allocations and provide subsequent funding to those entities that were eligible but did not receive funding. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite federal laws requiring the Department to allocate fiscal year 2023 Title I and Title II funds to LEAs beginning in July 2023, including charter schools, and detailed federal guidance on how to adjust the USDE allocations for new or significantly expanded charter schools, the Department lacked detailed procedures and reported that it only evaluated charter schools for inclusion in its allocation calculations upon direct requests from the schools, rather than evaluating charter schools annually. Specifically, the Department reported that it did not add charter schools to the list of eligible LEAs during their first year of operation or when the LEAs’ enrollment significantly expanded because Department staff used the prior fiscal year listing of eligible LEAs. The Department also did not perform a supervisory review and approval of this listing to ensure all eligible LEAs were properly included and evaluated. Further, Department staff responsible for the administration and execution of Title I and Title II grants during fiscal year 2023 were no longer employed by the Department at the time of the audit, and current leadership reported they were unaware of what policies and procedures were followed during the grant-allocation process due to out-of-date and incomplete policies and procedures and because the grant allocation process for fiscal year 2023 was performed prior to their hire. Specifically, the program administrator responsible for the allocation of grant funds was no longer employed by the Department as of April 20, 2023, 2 months before the end of the LEA grant period. As of this date, preliminary allocations for fiscal year 2024 had been calculated and were able to be adjusted by current Department staff. Due to the timing of the adjustments the Department implemented, the results of the changes in procedures for the fiscal year 2024 allocation will be reviewed for accuracy and compliance in the 2024 Single Audit Report. Lastly, the 6 ineligible LEAs that received Title II funds were Educational Service Agencies, such as a Juvenile Detention Center, that were ineligible for the funds due to the classification of their educational programs or organizational structure. When determining eligibility for these entities, the Department incorrectly classified the entities as public schools and therefore incorrectly deemed them eligible, resulting in $8,696 in improper payments. Criteria—Federal laws require the Department to use a statutory formula to annually allocate Title I and Title II funds to LEAs, including charter schools, based on the number of children from low-income families attending them who meet the eligibility requirements established by the USDE (20 USC §§6303, 6303b, 6304, 6333-6337). Public schools are defined as eligible LEAs in accordance with 34 USC 303.23(a) and A.R.S. §§15-101 and 15-913. In addition, federal laws and guidance require the Department to provide Title I and Title II funding to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment (20 USC §7221e). 2,3 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 Department should: 1. Ensure the allocation of Title I and Title II funds is based on statutory formula and eligibility requirements and that awards are made to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment by developing and implementing detailed allocation policies and procedures. 2. Ensure that staff responsible for the allocation and performance of grant objectives are adequately supervised and managed by knowledgeable supervisors who have the understanding and training to review and approve allocation calculations prior to Title I and Title II disbursements being made to LEAs. 3. Work with the USDE to determine if it will require the Department to recalculate the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct the amounts paid to LEAs. 4. Work with the 6 ineligible LEAs that received funding to determine if the amounts disbursed should be repaid and how the LEAs can reimburse the Department for these unallowable costs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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). 2 Significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the state educational agency (SEA) determines to be significant (34 CFR §78.787). 3 U.S. Department of Education. (November 21, 2016). Non-regulatory Guidance: Fiscal Changes and Equitable Services Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved 08/26/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/essaguidance160477.pdf
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Level of effort Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 without completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations and reducing grant funding when necessary as required by federal law. Specifically, the Department did not evaluate and reduce grant monies awarded to any charter school that failed to meet required spending levels (maintain fiscal effort) for more than once in a 5-year period. Effect—The Department’s not completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations for charter schools increased the risk that charter schools may have received current or future grant funding through fiscal year 2028 they are not entitled to and may require repayment to the U.S. Department of Education.1 Further, other LEAs may have been entitled to additional grant monies and may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department relied on its grant-management system to automatically calculate maintenance-of-effort without ensuring all necessary data was included in the calculations. The Department performs these maintenance-of-effort calculations on April 1 of each year using the prior-year data from the LEAs’ Financial Audit Report. Specifically, the Department reported that it changed where it stored the charter schools’ financial information in fiscal year 2023 but did not adjust grant-management system criteria to include the data in the maintenance-of-effort calculations run on April 1, 2023. Further, Department staff did not review the maintenance-of-effort calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. Criteria—Federal law requires the Department to disburse Title I and Title II grant monies to LEAs, including charter schools, only if maintenance-of-effort requirements are met. Specifically, the Department must calculate and verify that the combined fiscal effort per student or the LEA’s aggregate expenditures from State and local funds for free public education for the preceding year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding year. If the LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort, federal law requires the Department to reduce the LEA’s allocation under a covered program if the LEA also failed to maintain effort in 1 or more of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years in exact proportion by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (20 USC 7901). Also, 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 Department should: 1. Evaluate and reduce Title I and Title II funds annually for any LEA, including charter schools, that failed to maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. 2. Develop and implement maintenance-of-effort policies and procedures that include verifying that its grants management system’s maintenance-of-effort calculations include necessary data for all applicable LEAs, including charter schools, and to review the calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. 3. Determine if any LEAs, including charter schools, received funding they were not entitled to by completing the missing fiscal year 2023 charter school maintenance-of-effort calculations and identifying any LEAs that did not maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. If improper payments were made, work with the U.S. Department of Education to determine if they will require the Department to reperform the allocation of Title I and Title II benefits for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct any errors, if applicable, for the amounts paid to LEAs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently 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. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide 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 d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, 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 Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, 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. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. 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 term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, eligibility, earmarking, and special tests and provisions Questioned costs: $8,696 Condition—During fiscal year 2023, the Arizona Department of Education’s Title I Department (Department) allocated and disbursed over $354.6 million and over $43.6 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to local educational agencies (LEAs). However, contrary to federal requirements, the Department did not consider 110 Special LEAs (charter schools) for eligibility for federal Title I funding and 109 charter schools for federal Title II funding that may have been eligible and thus should have been included in its funding allocation calculations. Further, the Department included 6 ineligible LEAs in its Title II funding allocation calculation. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) awarded these Title I and Title II funds to the Department in October 2021, and they were allocated (specific grant amounts determined by the Department using statutory formulas) in April 2022, with the official grant period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023. The Title I and Title II funds the Department allocated to the LEAs were then considered obligated (reserved) and could be disbursed (paid) by the Department each month after it received and processed a reimbursement request from an LEA. Effect—The Department’s Title I and Title II awards to LEAs may be inaccurate. Specifically: • 519 Title I and 550 Title II LEAs likely received more funds than they were entitled to. We were unable to determine the actual questioned cost as we could not determine the individual amount of over- or underpayment for each LEA without the Department recalculating the allocation, including gathering census data and poverty data for the 110 Title I charter schools and 109 Title II charter schools that were not considered for eligibility and not part of the original allocation. The Department stated that the recalculation process would require the use of historical census, and enrollment and would be an overly arduous process. For these reasons, the Department chose to focus on correcting and overhauling the allocation process for fiscal year 2024 and forward. • 110 Title I and 109 Title II charter school LEAs not part of the original allocation and referenced above may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students in fiscal year 2023 if the Department had appropriately evaluated and determined them to be eligible for Title I and Title II disbursements. • $8,696 of Title II funds awarded to 6 ineligible LEAs may require repayment to the USDE.1 Further, future Title I and Title II funding could be affected if the USDE requires the Department to recalculate the fiscal year 2023 allocations and provide subsequent funding to those entities that were eligible but did not receive funding. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite federal laws requiring the Department to allocate fiscal year 2023 Title I and Title II funds to LEAs beginning in July 2023, including charter schools, and detailed federal guidance on how to adjust the USDE allocations for new or significantly expanded charter schools, the Department lacked detailed procedures and reported that it only evaluated charter schools for inclusion in its allocation calculations upon direct requests from the schools, rather than evaluating charter schools annually. Specifically, the Department reported that it did not add charter schools to the list of eligible LEAs during their first year of operation or when the LEAs’ enrollment significantly expanded because Department staff used the prior fiscal year listing of eligible LEAs. The Department also did not perform a supervisory review and approval of this listing to ensure all eligible LEAs were properly included and evaluated. Further, Department staff responsible for the administration and execution of Title I and Title II grants during fiscal year 2023 were no longer employed by the Department at the time of the audit, and current leadership reported they were unaware of what policies and procedures were followed during the grant-allocation process due to out-of-date and incomplete policies and procedures and because the grant allocation process for fiscal year 2023 was performed prior to their hire. Specifically, the program administrator responsible for the allocation of grant funds was no longer employed by the Department as of April 20, 2023, 2 months before the end of the LEA grant period. As of this date, preliminary allocations for fiscal year 2024 had been calculated and were able to be adjusted by current Department staff. Due to the timing of the adjustments the Department implemented, the results of the changes in procedures for the fiscal year 2024 allocation will be reviewed for accuracy and compliance in the 2024 Single Audit Report. Lastly, the 6 ineligible LEAs that received Title II funds were Educational Service Agencies, such as a Juvenile Detention Center, that were ineligible for the funds due to the classification of their educational programs or organizational structure. When determining eligibility for these entities, the Department incorrectly classified the entities as public schools and therefore incorrectly deemed them eligible, resulting in $8,696 in improper payments. Criteria—Federal laws require the Department to use a statutory formula to annually allocate Title I and Title II funds to LEAs, including charter schools, based on the number of children from low-income families attending them who meet the eligibility requirements established by the USDE (20 USC §§6303, 6303b, 6304, 6333-6337). Public schools are defined as eligible LEAs in accordance with 34 USC 303.23(a) and A.R.S. §§15-101 and 15-913. In addition, federal laws and guidance require the Department to provide Title I and Title II funding to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment (20 USC §7221e). 2,3 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 Department should: 1. Ensure the allocation of Title I and Title II funds is based on statutory formula and eligibility requirements and that awards are made to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment by developing and implementing detailed allocation policies and procedures. 2. Ensure that staff responsible for the allocation and performance of grant objectives are adequately supervised and managed by knowledgeable supervisors who have the understanding and training to review and approve allocation calculations prior to Title I and Title II disbursements being made to LEAs. 3. Work with the USDE to determine if it will require the Department to recalculate the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct the amounts paid to LEAs. 4. Work with the 6 ineligible LEAs that received funding to determine if the amounts disbursed should be repaid and how the LEAs can reimburse the Department for these unallowable costs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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). 2 Significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the state educational agency (SEA) determines to be significant (34 CFR §78.787). 3 U.S. Department of Education. (November 21, 2016). Non-regulatory Guidance: Fiscal Changes and Equitable Services Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved 08/26/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/essaguidance160477.pdf
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Level of effort Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 without completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations and reducing grant funding when necessary as required by federal law. Specifically, the Department did not evaluate and reduce grant monies awarded to any charter school that failed to meet required spending levels (maintain fiscal effort) for more than once in a 5-year period. Effect—The Department’s not completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations for charter schools increased the risk that charter schools may have received current or future grant funding through fiscal year 2028 they are not entitled to and may require repayment to the U.S. Department of Education.1 Further, other LEAs may have been entitled to additional grant monies and may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department relied on its grant-management system to automatically calculate maintenance-of-effort without ensuring all necessary data was included in the calculations. The Department performs these maintenance-of-effort calculations on April 1 of each year using the prior-year data from the LEAs’ Financial Audit Report. Specifically, the Department reported that it changed where it stored the charter schools’ financial information in fiscal year 2023 but did not adjust grant-management system criteria to include the data in the maintenance-of-effort calculations run on April 1, 2023. Further, Department staff did not review the maintenance-of-effort calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. Criteria—Federal law requires the Department to disburse Title I and Title II grant monies to LEAs, including charter schools, only if maintenance-of-effort requirements are met. Specifically, the Department must calculate and verify that the combined fiscal effort per student or the LEA’s aggregate expenditures from State and local funds for free public education for the preceding year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding year. If the LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort, federal law requires the Department to reduce the LEA’s allocation under a covered program if the LEA also failed to maintain effort in 1 or more of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years in exact proportion by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (20 USC 7901). Also, 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 Department should: 1. Evaluate and reduce Title I and Title II funds annually for any LEA, including charter schools, that failed to maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. 2. Develop and implement maintenance-of-effort policies and procedures that include verifying that its grants management system’s maintenance-of-effort calculations include necessary data for all applicable LEAs, including charter schools, and to review the calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. 3. Determine if any LEAs, including charter schools, received funding they were not entitled to by completing the missing fiscal year 2023 charter school maintenance-of-effort calculations and identifying any LEAs that did not maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. If improper payments were made, work with the U.S. Department of Education to determine if they will require the Department to reperform the allocation of Title I and Title II benefits for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct any errors, if applicable, for the amounts paid to LEAs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently 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. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide 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 d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, 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 Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, 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. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. 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 term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, eligibility, earmarking, and special tests and provisions Questioned costs: $8,696 Condition—During fiscal year 2023, the Arizona Department of Education’s Title I Department (Department) allocated and disbursed over $354.6 million and over $43.6 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to local educational agencies (LEAs). However, contrary to federal requirements, the Department did not consider 110 Special LEAs (charter schools) for eligibility for federal Title I funding and 109 charter schools for federal Title II funding that may have been eligible and thus should have been included in its funding allocation calculations. Further, the Department included 6 ineligible LEAs in its Title II funding allocation calculation. The U.S. Department of Education (USDE) awarded these Title I and Title II funds to the Department in October 2021, and they were allocated (specific grant amounts determined by the Department using statutory formulas) in April 2022, with the official grant period beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023. The Title I and Title II funds the Department allocated to the LEAs were then considered obligated (reserved) and could be disbursed (paid) by the Department each month after it received and processed a reimbursement request from an LEA. Effect—The Department’s Title I and Title II awards to LEAs may be inaccurate. Specifically: • 519 Title I and 550 Title II LEAs likely received more funds than they were entitled to. We were unable to determine the actual questioned cost as we could not determine the individual amount of over- or underpayment for each LEA without the Department recalculating the allocation, including gathering census data and poverty data for the 110 Title I charter schools and 109 Title II charter schools that were not considered for eligibility and not part of the original allocation. The Department stated that the recalculation process would require the use of historical census, and enrollment and would be an overly arduous process. For these reasons, the Department chose to focus on correcting and overhauling the allocation process for fiscal year 2024 and forward. • 110 Title I and 109 Title II charter school LEAs not part of the original allocation and referenced above may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students in fiscal year 2023 if the Department had appropriately evaluated and determined them to be eligible for Title I and Title II disbursements. • $8,696 of Title II funds awarded to 6 ineligible LEAs may require repayment to the USDE.1 Further, future Title I and Title II funding could be affected if the USDE requires the Department to recalculate the fiscal year 2023 allocations and provide subsequent funding to those entities that were eligible but did not receive funding. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite federal laws requiring the Department to allocate fiscal year 2023 Title I and Title II funds to LEAs beginning in July 2023, including charter schools, and detailed federal guidance on how to adjust the USDE allocations for new or significantly expanded charter schools, the Department lacked detailed procedures and reported that it only evaluated charter schools for inclusion in its allocation calculations upon direct requests from the schools, rather than evaluating charter schools annually. Specifically, the Department reported that it did not add charter schools to the list of eligible LEAs during their first year of operation or when the LEAs’ enrollment significantly expanded because Department staff used the prior fiscal year listing of eligible LEAs. The Department also did not perform a supervisory review and approval of this listing to ensure all eligible LEAs were properly included and evaluated. Further, Department staff responsible for the administration and execution of Title I and Title II grants during fiscal year 2023 were no longer employed by the Department at the time of the audit, and current leadership reported they were unaware of what policies and procedures were followed during the grant-allocation process due to out-of-date and incomplete policies and procedures and because the grant allocation process for fiscal year 2023 was performed prior to their hire. Specifically, the program administrator responsible for the allocation of grant funds was no longer employed by the Department as of April 20, 2023, 2 months before the end of the LEA grant period. As of this date, preliminary allocations for fiscal year 2024 had been calculated and were able to be adjusted by current Department staff. Due to the timing of the adjustments the Department implemented, the results of the changes in procedures for the fiscal year 2024 allocation will be reviewed for accuracy and compliance in the 2024 Single Audit Report. Lastly, the 6 ineligible LEAs that received Title II funds were Educational Service Agencies, such as a Juvenile Detention Center, that were ineligible for the funds due to the classification of their educational programs or organizational structure. When determining eligibility for these entities, the Department incorrectly classified the entities as public schools and therefore incorrectly deemed them eligible, resulting in $8,696 in improper payments. Criteria—Federal laws require the Department to use a statutory formula to annually allocate Title I and Title II funds to LEAs, including charter schools, based on the number of children from low-income families attending them who meet the eligibility requirements established by the USDE (20 USC §§6303, 6303b, 6304, 6333-6337). Public schools are defined as eligible LEAs in accordance with 34 USC 303.23(a) and A.R.S. §§15-101 and 15-913. In addition, federal laws and guidance require the Department to provide Title I and Title II funding to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment (20 USC §7221e). 2,3 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 Department should: 1. Ensure the allocation of Title I and Title II funds is based on statutory formula and eligibility requirements and that awards are made to eligible charter schools within 5 months of opening for the first time or significantly expanding enrollment by developing and implementing detailed allocation policies and procedures. 2. Ensure that staff responsible for the allocation and performance of grant objectives are adequately supervised and managed by knowledgeable supervisors who have the understanding and training to review and approve allocation calculations prior to Title I and Title II disbursements being made to LEAs. 3. Work with the USDE to determine if it will require the Department to recalculate the allocation of funds for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct the amounts paid to LEAs. 4. Work with the 6 ineligible LEAs that received funding to determine if the amounts disbursed should be repaid and how the LEAs can reimburse the Department for these unallowable costs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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). 2 Significant expansion of enrollment means a substantial increase in the number of students attending a charter school due to a significant event that is unlikely to occur on a regular basis, such as the addition of one or more grades or educational programs in major curriculum areas. The term also includes any other expansion of enrollment that the state educational agency (SEA) determines to be significant (34 CFR §78.787). 3 U.S. Department of Education. (November 21, 2016). Non-regulatory Guidance: Fiscal Changes and Equitable Services Requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved 08/26/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/essaguidance160477.pdf
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Level of effort Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 without completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations and reducing grant funding when necessary as required by federal law. Specifically, the Department did not evaluate and reduce grant monies awarded to any charter school that failed to meet required spending levels (maintain fiscal effort) for more than once in a 5-year period. Effect—The Department’s not completing required maintenance-of-effort calculations for charter schools increased the risk that charter schools may have received current or future grant funding through fiscal year 2028 they are not entitled to and may require repayment to the U.S. Department of Education.1 Further, other LEAs may have been entitled to additional grant monies and may have been able to provide additional services to eligible students. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department relied on its grant-management system to automatically calculate maintenance-of-effort without ensuring all necessary data was included in the calculations. The Department performs these maintenance-of-effort calculations on April 1 of each year using the prior-year data from the LEAs’ Financial Audit Report. Specifically, the Department reported that it changed where it stored the charter schools’ financial information in fiscal year 2023 but did not adjust grant-management system criteria to include the data in the maintenance-of-effort calculations run on April 1, 2023. Further, Department staff did not review the maintenance-of-effort calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. Criteria—Federal law requires the Department to disburse Title I and Title II grant monies to LEAs, including charter schools, only if maintenance-of-effort requirements are met. Specifically, the Department must calculate and verify that the combined fiscal effort per student or the LEA’s aggregate expenditures from State and local funds for free public education for the preceding year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding year. If the LEA fails to maintain fiscal effort, federal law requires the Department to reduce the LEA’s allocation under a covered program if the LEA also failed to maintain effort in 1 or more of the 5 immediately preceding fiscal years in exact proportion by which the LEA failed to maintain effort (20 USC 7901). Also, 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 Department should: 1. Evaluate and reduce Title I and Title II funds annually for any LEA, including charter schools, that failed to maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. 2. Develop and implement maintenance-of-effort policies and procedures that include verifying that its grants management system’s maintenance-of-effort calculations include necessary data for all applicable LEAs, including charter schools, and to review the calculation results to ensure all LEAs were included. 3. Determine if any LEAs, including charter schools, received funding they were not entitled to by completing the missing fiscal year 2023 charter school maintenance-of-effort calculations and identifying any LEAs that did not maintain fiscal effort more than once in a 5-year period. If improper payments were made, work with the U.S. Department of Education to determine if they will require the Department to reperform the allocation of Title I and Title II benefits for fiscal year 2023 and what steps may be necessary to correct any errors, if applicable, for the amounts paid to LEAs. 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 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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).
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 84.010 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 84.367 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (formerly Improving Teacher Quality State Grants)* *referred to as Title II Award numbers and years: S010A190003, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S010A200003, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S010A210003, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S010A220003, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023; S367A190049, July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; S367A200049, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; S367A210049, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; S367A220049, July 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance requirement: Special tests and provisions Questioned costs: Unknown Condition—The Department of Education’s Grants Management Department (Department) disbursed over $55.3 million and over $6.1 million in Title I and Title II funds, respectively, to 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school local educational agencies (LEAs) during fiscal year 2023 but did not perform certain monitoring procedures required by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the Department did not identify which of the 295 Title I and 307 Title II charter school LEAs receiving federal grant monies had relationships with charter management organizations (CMOs) in order to perform additional required monitoring to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties at these charter schools.1 Effect—The Department’s not identifying or performing additional monitoring of charter schools with relationships with CMOs increases the risk that funds allocated to these charter school LEAs may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements and could result in the U.S. Department of Education to reduce future awards.2 Further, if monies were spent inconsistently 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. Additionally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—Despite the U.S. Department of Education providing related guidance in September 2015, the Department staff reported they were unaware of the requirement to perform additional monitoring steps over charter schools with relationships with CMOs. Further, the Department’s policies and procedures for monitoring LEAs did not differentiate between regular LEAs, charter schools without CMOs, or charter schools with relationships with CMOs. As such, the Department lacked specific procedures to assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Department to monitor subrecipients, including charter schools, which includes required monitoring procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and monitoring activities based on those risk assessments. Those federal regulations also provide 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 d]). As part of these monitoring responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Education requires the Department to monitor charter schools with relationships with CMOs and assess the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties.3 Also, 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 Department should: 1. Perform annual monitoring over charter schools with relationships with CMOs, including performing risk-assessment procedures over the additional risk posed by conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties, 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. Update existing LEA-monitoring policies and procedures and train employees to identify charter schools that have relationships with CMOs and to then assess and design monitoring procedures over conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties. 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 term “charter management organization” means a nonprofit organization that operates or manages a network of charter schools linked by centralized support, operations, and oversight (20 USC 7221i[3]. Retrieved 9/13/2024 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/7221i#2 2 Federal Uniform Guidance requires 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 On September 28, 2015, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter to State Educational Agencies (SEAs) reminding them of their role in helping to ensure that federal funds accessed by public charter schools are used for intended, appropriate purposes, and provided additional resources for states, and specifically SEAs, to consult as they consider improvements to their monitoring and oversight procedures for charter schools (U.S. Department of Education. [2015, September]. Letter to SEAs. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/finalsignedcsp.pdf). Further, in September 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General issued an audit report on charter schools with CMOs and identified risks such as conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, or insufficient segregation of duties (U.S. Department of Education. [2016, September]. Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations. Retrieved 8/29/2024 from https://oig.ed.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-11/a02m0012.pdf).
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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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: 21.027 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 numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. 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 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require 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 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Assistance Listings numbers and names: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program 14.231 COVID-19 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award numbers and years: E-20-DW-04-001, July 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022; E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,820 Assistance Listings numbers and names: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 93.558 COVID-19 - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award numbers and years: 2201AZTANF, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022; 2301AZTANF, October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Questioned costs: $10,330 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $12,150 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $12,150 during fiscal year 2023 that were unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Specifically, we reviewed 14 reimbursements that included Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program costs totaling $26,120 and $65,730 for the year, respectively, and found that DES reimbursed the subrecipient: • $4,733 for financial and accounting services that were paid to 1 of the nonprofit organization’s principal officers, who served as the Treasurer, and their company, which was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by DES’ contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($112 for ESG and $4,621 for TANF). • $7,417 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed, written contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, DES reimbursed the subrecipient for payments made to the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to DES as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, DES did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the program’s requirements ($1,708 for ESG and $5,709 for TANF). Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, DES had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. ESG was not audited as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether DES or its subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for this program. We audited the TANF program as a major federal program for the State’s fiscal year 2023 single audit, and we performed follow-up procedures to the review that we conducted during fiscal year 2022. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 14 reimbursements involving 1 of DES’ nonprofit subrecipients with which it partnered to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program (Assistance Listings number 14.267), ESG, and TANF, which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2023, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the federal Continuum of Care Program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in findings 2023-116 and 2023-06, respectively. Effect—DES’ reimbursing a nonprofit organization subrecipient for $12,150 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements resulted in those monies being unavailable to be spent for their intended purpose of providing housing assistance to those in need. Consequently, DES may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—Although DES’ subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures did not require it to obtain from subrecipients documentation supporting charges for personal and contracted professional services to verify allowability when subrecipients requested reimbursement, the policies and procedures required an on-site monitoring visit once every 3 years for each subrecipient in which it reviews a sample of the subrecipient’s personal and professional services charges. However, DES had not performed an on-site monitoring visit of the nonprofit subrecipient since 2018 because it had not yet resumed all its subrecipient-monitoring activities, such as conducting on-site reviews and providing training and technical assistance, since suspending these activities during the COVID-19 pandemic during fiscal year 2020. In addition, DES had not properly assessed the subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures it should put in place or training the subrecipient needed. For example, DES was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that it could ensure that the principal officer and their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively reviewed the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require DES to monitor subrecipients and include required procedures for assessing the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and implementing appropriate monitoring procedures to address those risk assessments; verifying single audits were conducted timely, if required; reviewing financial and performance reports; following up on and ensuring corrective action is taken on deficiencies that could potentially affect the program; and issuing management decisions on the results of audit findings or monitoring.2 Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures DES may implement to address a subrecipient’s risk assessment include providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs.2 In addition, federal regulations require DES’ subrecipients to allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, to use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and to disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest.3 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303 and 45 CFR §75.303). Recommendations—DES should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officer or their immediate family member in violation of federal regulations and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported, allowable in accordance with program requirements, and approved by the appropriate level of management. 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. 4. Assess the risk of each subrecipient’s noncompliance and perform the appropriate monitoring procedures based on the assessed risk, such as providing training or technical assistance on program-related matters and performing on-site reviews and selective audits of reimbursed costs for allowability. 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to DES any potential conflicts of interest. DES may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that address these compliance areas, including DES obtaining conflict-of-interest disclosures from subrecipients as part of the subaward contract, as an example, or otherwise establishing a communication mechanism for subrecipients to use as such conflicts arise. 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $12,150 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. 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 2022-114 (TANF) and 2022-115 (ESG) and was initially reported in fiscal year 2022. 1 Federal Uniform Guidance and U.S. Health and Human Services audit requirements require federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c] and 45 CFR §75.513[c]). Further, they require 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 and 45 CFR §75.521). 2 The applicable federal requirements related to subrecipient monitoring can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521 and 45 CFR §§75.352, .371, and .521. 3 The applicable federal requirements related to allowable costs, competitive purchasing, and conflicts of interest can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 2 CFR §§200.112, .318-.327, and Subpart E; 24 CFR §578.95; and 45 CFR §§75.112, .326-.335, and Subpart E.
Reference Number: 2023-009 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Public Health (Public Health) Assistance Listing Number: 93.323 Federal Program Title: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Number and Year: NU50CK000539; 2021 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (e) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control-Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): All pass-through entities must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with §180.300. Verification methods are provided in §180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient’s unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per §200.414. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards: (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving cross-cutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the passthrough entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient’s Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in §200.501. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient’s audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity’s own records. Condition Public Health did not establish a formal risk assessment process over its subrecipients of federal awards by which to determine the frequency and extent of subrecipient monitoring to be performed. While Public Health received reimbursement invoices from subrecipients, there did not appear to be other financial or programmatic monitoring to verify subrecipients complied with applicable requirements. In addition, Public Health did not obtain supporting documentation for any expenditures invoiced by the subrecipients. Follow-up monitoring for subrecipients with no single audit reports did not appear to be performed. On-site monitoring visits were not completed. Public Health was unable to provide evidence that suspension and debarment status of subrecipients was checked prior to entering into subaward. Public Health used a Department Allocation Letter (DAL) for the COVID-19 program instead of an agreement or contract for the subaward to subrecipients. Certain required information for the subaward federal award information such as Assistance Listings number and Title and Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) were not clearly identified in the DAL. Identification as a Repeat Finding Finding 2022-011 was reported in the immediate prior year. Cause Procedures to perform the required subrecipient monitoring were not established nor did Public Health perform an appropriate level of monitoring. Effect By not properly evaluating the risk of noncompliance, Public Health may inadvertently award grant funds to subrecipients who lack the necessary mechanisms or understanding to comply with federal statutes. This increases the likelihood of noncompliance arising during the performance of the grant-funded activities. Furthermore, failure to obtain and review single audit reports increases the risk of not properly identifying subrecipient program control weaknesses, noncompliance and performing sufficient follow-up on any subrecipient corrective action. Questioned Costs No questioned costs were identified. Context Disbursements to subrecipients for the ELC totaled $282,954,398, or 49% of total reported program expenditures. Recommendation Public Health should establish and document formal procedures for conducting risk assessments of subrecipient funding, including criteria for evaluating organizational capacity, financial stability, compliance history, and programmatic capabilities. Public Health should also develop and implement procedures outlining the process for obtaining single audit reports from subrecipients. Furthermore, a monitoring mechanism should be implemented to track compliance with the single audit mandate among subrecipients, including regular follow-ups and documentation of communication efforts. Public Health should ensure every subaward includes all requirements imposed on the subrecipient so that the federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-061 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2022 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, a pass-through entity must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with § 180.300. Verification methods are provided in § 180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity, including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (c) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (g) Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F of this part. (h) Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. (i) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 and in program regulations. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our understanding of the program, program staff were interviewed regarding the existence of subrecipients. None of the staff interviewed identified any transactions involving subrecipients. However, in our testing of internal controls and compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles requirement, transactions were selected to assess compliance with this requirement. Upon receiving documentation from a contractor, we realized that the transactions with this supplier were in the capacity of a subrecipient. In addition, the SEFA submitted by the PRDF does not identify any transaction under a subrecipient related to this program. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. We examined four (4) vouchers related to these services; the contract, proposal and invoices do not indicate information related to subrecipients. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. The staff in charge of administering TANF funds were unaware of the factors required to properly identify subrecipient transactions. The total expenditure reflected in the database related to subrecipient activities totaled $686,052.17 for the audited fiscal year. After providing the requirements for a subrecipient, staff were interviewed again to verify whether other providers met the subrecipient requirements, but no other entities were identified. From our testing, we identified no other subrecipients. Although, in the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, all expenditures related to preventive services were included as pass-through expenditures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The staff in charge of administering the program were unaware of the factors that determine whether a contractor is a subrecipient or a contractor. ADSEF has not established an adequate procedures manual that demonstrates compliance with all requirements for subrecipient activities. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not have internal controls related to the identification, management, and reporting of subrecipient activities. This situation prevents compliance with all compliance requirements related to subrecipient monitoring. This situation prevented the proper presentation of Federal expenditures incurred under this program in the SEFA or other financial reports required by Federal agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS The PRDF must provide training to ADSEF personnel on the requirements and regulations related to subrecipient monitoring. We recommend that management establish internal controls and compliance measures that allow for the identification, reporting, and monitoring of subrecipient activities.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.
FINDING NO: 2023-014 STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.332(d) – Requirements for Pass-through Entities states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the passthrough entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501.” Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma transferred all CSLFRF funds (except for administrative funds used by OMES-Grants Management Office (GMO) and the Legislative Service Bureau) to state agencies for them to execute projects they are charged with administering. The Oklahoma State Department of Health (agency #340), Health Care Workforce Training Commission (agency #619), and Department of Human Services (agency #830) had the material subrecipient monitoring activity for SFY 2023. These three state agencies notified their subrecipients of $750,000 federal expenditure threshold requiring a Single Audit per 2 CFR § 200.501 - Audit Requirements; however, they failed to track subrecipients that expended federal expenditures for CSLFRF, or in combination with other federal programs, to ensure that every subrecipient expending over $750,000 obtained a Single Audit. Cause: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 did not have sufficient processes or internal controls in place to ensure subrecipient Single Audits were tracked in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332(d) and (f). Effect: State agencies 340, 619, and 830 may not be aware of potential subrecipient Single Audits with noncompliance issues related to the CSLFRF program. In addition, the agencies may fail to ensure that the subrecipient took appropriate corrective action on findings within the required timeframe. Recommendation: We recommend state agencies 340, 619, and 830 develop policies and procedures and internal controls to ensure that all CSLFRF subrecipients are tracked to determine if the subrecipient had $750,000 in total federal expenditures for the year. In addition, we recommend state agencies utilize a track sheet that documents the following: • Subrecipient SFY CSLFRF expenditures • If subrecipient is subject to single audit (y/n) • If subrecipient had CSLFRF findings (y/n) • Concerns with CSLFRF findings • Date single audit is received from subrecipient or obtained from the federal audit clearing house • Single Audit Report period (period covered by the single audit) • Whether the state agency received a copy of the required audit from the subrecipient within 9 months of the subrecipient's fiscal year end • Dates of follow-ups made to the subrecipient requesting single audits • Notes to document additional information such as delays in audit reports • Whether the state agency issued a management decision on audit findings within 6 months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report • Whether the state agency ensured that subrecipients took appropriate and timely corrective action on all CSLFRF audit findings Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: OMES: Parker Wise 619: Sara Librandi, Kami Fullingim 340: Diane Brown, Danielle Smith, Tracey Douglas 830: Jaretta Murphy, Lindsey Kanaly, Danielle Durkee, Katey Campbell Anticipated Completion Date: 6/30/2025 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: State agency 830 states “a process is already in place through the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to identify subrecipients exceeding the $750,000 threshold”; however, subrecipients with expenditures below the threshold must also be tracked to ensure total federal expenditures from all federal awards obtain a Single Audit. 2 CFR 200.332 states in part, “All pass-through entities must: … (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited”. Therefore, state agency 830 acting as the pass-through entity must verify every subrecipient is audited. In addition, contractual language requiring the subrecipient submit a single audit if the threshold is met does not release the passthrough entity of ensuring the subrecipient’s total federal expenditures are tracked. We have encountered instances where subrecipients fail to provide single audits to pass-through entities; therefore, increasing the chances of the passthrough entity not issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the federal award provided.