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.
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 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has 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 awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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 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 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 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. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has 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 awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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 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 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 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. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has 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 awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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 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 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 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. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-004 Subject: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Programs: COVID-19 - Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program, Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program Assistance Listings Number: 20.509 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): EDS#A249-20-G20032, EDS#A249-22-G210088, EDS#A249-22-G210124 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The County had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Program funds (Transit program) passed through to a subrecipient. The County received and passed through to a subrecipient $664,071 in Transit program funds. The County is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipient, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipient to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipient to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. As part of managing the award, the County is to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance to determine the extent of monitoring. Such factors to consider would include the subrecipients prior experience with the award or similar awards, results of previous audits, any personnel or system changes at the subrecipient, and the extent and results of federal reviews. Based on the results of the County's risk of noncompliance evaluation, the extent of monitoring can be determined. Monitoring activities include, but are not limited to, reviewing financial and performance reports, ensuring audits are obtained as required, follow-up to ensure appropriate action was taken on deficiencies identified during an audit, issuing management decisions for applicable findings related to the federal award, and ensuring audit findings related to the subaward are resolved. The County did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipient's risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipient. Per inquiry of the County, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipient was not completed, nor did the subrecipient's files support any such evaluation. In addition, while the subrecipient provided reimbursement requests, the requests did not include sufficient evidence for the County to ascertain if the subrecipient was complying with the grant requirements. The County also did not request or review the subrecipient's audit or monitoring reports to identify any potential noncompliance, determine if management decisions were needed, or if any issues identified were properly resolved. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities. (Revised Uniform Guidance) states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has 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 awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. (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 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 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 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. Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the County did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipient. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County implement a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipient. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipient. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding Number: 2022-007 Repeat Finding: Yes Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance Description: Subrecipient Monitoring and Management Major Programs AL#93.665 - Emergency Grants to Address Mental and Substance Use Disorders During COVID-19 ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 6H79FG000252-01M003 and 6H79FG000689-01M004 AL#93.772 - Tribal Public Health Capacity Building and Quality Improvement Umbrella Cooperative Agreement ? Direct Award (DHHS) ? Award numbers: 5NU38OT000257-04-00 and 5NU38OT000257-05-00 Questioned Costs: None How the questioned costs were computed: N/A Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Organization did not comply with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.332. Criteria: The subrecipient monitoring and management requirements that are codified in 2 CFR Part 200.332 requires the pass-through entity must: Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes: Federal award identification; All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity 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; Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; The de minimis indirect cost rate The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient?s records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. Evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in ? 200.208. 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: Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. 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. 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. 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 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. Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, 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: Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; and Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in ? 200.425. 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. 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. Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in ? 200.339 of this part and in program regulations. Cause: The Organization?s management was not aware of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with any of the subrecipient monitoring and management requirements, resulting in a material noncompliance and a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization implement systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the subrecipient monitoring and management compliance requirements.
Finding No. 2022-031 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury AL Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Award No.: COVID-19 Area: Subrecipient Monitoring Questioned Costs: $61,003,095 Criteria: Per the U.S. Treasury Interim and Final Rules, the U.S. Treasury is aligning the definition of subrecipient in the final rule with the definition of subrecipient in the Uniform Guidance, wherein, subrecipients are entities that receive a subaward from a recipient to carry out a program or project on behalf of the recipient with the recipient’s Federal award funding but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such award. The recipient remains responsible for monitoring and overseeing the subrecipient’s use of Fiscal Recovery Funds and other activities related to the award to ensure that the subrecipient complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements and the terms and conditions of the award. Recipients also remain responsible for reporting to Treasury on their subrecipients’ use of payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds for the duration of the award. Accordingly, in accordance with 2 CFR § 200.332, pass-through entity (PTE) must: 1. Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A PTE must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A PTE must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. One of the required information includes: (1) Federal award identification: (i) Subrecipient’s unique entity identifier; (ii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iii) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (iv) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (v) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (vi) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the PTE, including the current financial obligation; (vii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the PTE, including the current financial obligation; and (viii) 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. (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; (4) 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 (5) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. 2. 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 PTE 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). 3. 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 PTE 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 PTE 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 PTE as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the PTE 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 PTE 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. 4. Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F. 5. Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. Further, in accordance with 31 CFR § 19.300, prior to entering into subawards with award funds, recipients must verify that such subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving federal funds. Condition: 1. Of seventeen subrecipients tested, aggregating $60,403,095 of a total population of $61,003,095, the following were noted: a. For seventeen (or 100%), documentations of the risk assessments performed and verification as to whether the subrecipients are not suspended or debarred were not provided. b. For two (or 12%), subrecipient agreements were not provided. No questioned costs are presented as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. c. For two (or 12%), subrecipients’ unique entity identifiers, the federal award identification numbers (FAIN), amounts of federal funds obligated by this action by the PTE to the subrecipients, total amount of federal funds obligated to the subrecipients by the PTE, including the current financial obligations and the appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subawards, were not included in the subrecipient agreements. No questioned costs are presented as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. d. For ten (or 59%), subawards were supported with financial assistance request letters from the subrecipients and not with a subaward agreement that CNMI utilizes for other subawards. Accordingly, other than the date of request, amount requested and purpose of the financial assistance, all other required subaward information pursuant to 2 CFR § 200.332, were not indicated. No questioned costs as amounts are questioned at Condition 1a. e. For one (or 6%), no monitoring procedures were performed. No questioned cost is presented as the amount is questioned at Condition 1a. 2. Of sixteen subrecipient monitoring procedure requirements tested, aggregating $58,537,352 of a total population of $58,537,352, for sixteen (or 100%), documentation on monitoring procedures performed were not provided. In addition, documentation of preventive measures taken to mitigate risk from subrecipients that showed elevated risk factors or for identified unallowable activities were not documented and no verification as to whether the subrecipients are subject to the audit requirements. 3. Of sixty monitoring procedure requirements tested at the invoice/disbursement level, aggregating $58,438,922 of a total population of $61,003,095, the following were noted: a. For six (or 10%), review and approval of invoices and/or payments to ensure that subrecipients used the subaward for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subawards, were not evident. No questioned costs are presented as expenditures pertain to subawards that were questioned at Condition 1a for Award Numbers CNMI22037 and COVID-19 Care Force Project. b. For twenty-four (or 40%), either the check payments and/or invoices or equivalent documentations were not provided; accordingly, the CNMI was not able to substantiate that monitoring procedures were performed to ensure that subrecipients used the subaward for authorized purposes in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subawards. No questioned costs are presented as expenditures pertain to subawards that were questioned at Condition 1a for Award Numbers NMPMG, CNMI 22037, CNMI22044 and COVID-19 Care Force Project and at Condition 2 for Award Reference Number 5302. Cause: The CNMI does not have approved/adopted written subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. In addition, the CNMI failed to enforce compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements and lacks monitoring controls over the following: 1. Monitoring activities of a subrecipient to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; 2. Adequate documentation and systematic filing of relevant documentation supporting program costs. In addition, for award number CNMI22044, the Entity’s management has determined that it should be classified as a contractor under the agreement as the Entity’s role is to promote the program within the CNMI, develop a marketing and promotional campaign and disburse the award to the recipients identified by the CNMI. The Entity was not involved in reviewing and deciding which grant applicant is eligible to receive the grant. CNMI’s role in the review of grant applications and eligibility determination may have caused confusion as to whether the Entity that received the funds is a subrecipient or a contractor. As of the auditor’s report date, the CNMI and the Entity have yet to conclude whether the Entity received the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor. Effect: The CNMI is in noncompliance with applicable subrecipient monitoring requirements and questioned costs of $61,003,095 for Condition 1. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Finding No. 2021-033 Recommendation: We recommend the CNMI establish approved/adopted written subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures and an approved template that includes all required clauses needed for subrecipient agreements. In addition, CNMI should implement monitoring internal control procedures over the following: 1. Preventive measures taken to mitigate risk from subrecipients that showed elevated risk factors or for identified unallowable activities are adequately documented. Recommendation, continued: 2. Verification that subrecipients are audited as required by subpart F; 3. Monitoring activities of a subrecipient to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; 4. Provide subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters, including thorough explanation of their role as subrecipients; 5. Adequate documentation and systematic filing of relevant documentation to support program costs. Views of Responsible Officials: Conditions 1 to 3 - The Department of Finance agrees with this finding. The Department has recently adopted and approved (August 2025) a Subrecipient Monitoring Policy and Procedures which specifically focused on the implementation of 2 CFR 200.331. Refer to CNMI’s Corrective Action Plan for additional information.
Assistance Listings number and name: 12.401 National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects Award numbers and years: W912L2-21-2-1000, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; W912L2-22-2-1000, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Defense Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $125,288 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies, the Department of Emergency Military Affairs (Department) did not always retain documentation supporting the payroll costs it charged to the program. Specifically, the Department had not retained the personnel action forms supporting and approving employees’ pay rates and authorizing them to work on the program for 4 of 21 employees we tested, as follows: • $123,968 for 3 employees’ annual payroll costs and employee-related expenses for which each employee’s salaries and wages and authorization to work on the program were not supported by documented personnel action forms. • $1,320 for 1 employee whose previous personnel action form authorized their working on the program but whose most recent pay rate increase was not supported by a documented personnel action form. Effect—The Department’s failure to retain documentation supporting payroll costs could potentially result in the Department being required to return monies spent on unallowable costs to the federal agency or adjust its program’s costs so that monies are spent for allowable costs.1 During fiscal year 2022, the Department paid 323 employees $15,486,984 of salaries and wages, including employee-related expenses, that were charged to the program. There is a risk that the Department could have potentially charged additional payroll costs to the program without maintaining the required supporting documentation. Finally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department’s Administrative Services Office (Office) was not adequately trained to follow the documentation and record retention policy. Specifically, the Office reported that it did not retain the personnel action records as they were unaware that all employee personnel records were required to be retained for 5 years after an employee’s termination. Instead, the Office interpreted the policy to only require these documents to be retained for 5 years after the documents were originally created. Criteria—The Department’s record retention policies require its Administrative Services Office to retain for 5 years after an employee’s termination all the employee’s employment records, including personnel action forms authorizing employee pay rate changes and program assignments.2 Federal regulation requires the Department to retain all records related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor (2 CFR §200.334). Also, federal regulation requires the Department to maintain records for salaries and wages charged to federal awards that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by policies and internal controls to ensure they are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated (2 CFR §200.430[i][1][i]). 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 documentation is retained for all personnel actions to demonstrate employees’ salaries and wages, including employee-related expenses, are authorized to be charged to the program. 2. Review all employee personnel files for employees currently paid under the program to ensure the required documentation has been retained. If the documentation has not been retained, program management should review the employees’ activities to ensure they are allowable under the program and prepare and retain the required documentation. Further, if employee activities are determined to be unallowable, coordinate with the U.S. Department of Defense to adjust future federal reimbursement requests or repay any unallowable costs the Department charged to the program. 3. Train its Administrative Services Office and Department employees who are responsible for administering federal programs on the documentation and record retention requirements for payroll costs charged to federal programs. 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 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 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). 2 Arizona Department of Emergency Military Affairs (DEMA), State Human Resources Administration. (2007, October). DEMA Directive 20.1, section 1.3. Retrieved 9/13/2023 from https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/20.1_State_Human_Resources_Administration_20071001.pdf.
Assistance Listings number and name: 12.401 National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects Award numbers and years: W912L2-21-2-1000, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; W912L2-22-2-1000, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Defense Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $125,288 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies, the Department of Emergency Military Affairs (Department) did not always retain documentation supporting the payroll costs it charged to the program. Specifically, the Department had not retained the personnel action forms supporting and approving employees’ pay rates and authorizing them to work on the program for 4 of 21 employees we tested, as follows: • $123,968 for 3 employees’ annual payroll costs and employee-related expenses for which each employee’s salaries and wages and authorization to work on the program were not supported by documented personnel action forms. • $1,320 for 1 employee whose previous personnel action form authorized their working on the program but whose most recent pay rate increase was not supported by a documented personnel action form. Effect—The Department’s failure to retain documentation supporting payroll costs could potentially result in the Department being required to return monies spent on unallowable costs to the federal agency or adjust its program’s costs so that monies are spent for allowable costs.1 During fiscal year 2022, the Department paid 323 employees $15,486,984 of salaries and wages, including employee-related expenses, that were charged to the program. There is a risk that the Department could have potentially charged additional payroll costs to the program without maintaining the required supporting documentation. Finally, the Department is at risk that this finding applies to other federal programs it administers. Cause—The Department’s Administrative Services Office (Office) was not adequately trained to follow the documentation and record retention policy. Specifically, the Office reported that it did not retain the personnel action records as they were unaware that all employee personnel records were required to be retained for 5 years after an employee’s termination. Instead, the Office interpreted the policy to only require these documents to be retained for 5 years after the documents were originally created. Criteria—The Department’s record retention policies require its Administrative Services Office to retain for 5 years after an employee’s termination all the employee’s employment records, including personnel action forms authorizing employee pay rate changes and program assignments.2 Federal regulation requires the Department to retain all records related to a federal program for a period of 3 years from the date the program’s final report was submitted to the federal awarding agency or pass-through grantor (2 CFR §200.334). Also, federal regulation requires the Department to maintain records for salaries and wages charged to federal awards that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by policies and internal controls to ensure they are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated (2 CFR §200.430[i][1][i]). 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 documentation is retained for all personnel actions to demonstrate employees’ salaries and wages, including employee-related expenses, are authorized to be charged to the program. 2. Review all employee personnel files for employees currently paid under the program to ensure the required documentation has been retained. If the documentation has not been retained, program management should review the employees’ activities to ensure they are allowable under the program and prepare and retain the required documentation. Further, if employee activities are determined to be unallowable, coordinate with the U.S. Department of Defense to adjust future federal reimbursement requests or repay any unallowable costs the Department charged to the program. 3. Train its Administrative Services Office and Department employees who are responsible for administering federal programs on the documentation and record retention requirements for payroll costs charged to federal programs. 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 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 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). 2 Arizona Department of Emergency Military Affairs (DEMA), State Human Resources Administration. (2007, October). DEMA Directive 20.1, section 1.3. Retrieved 9/13/2023 from https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/20.1_State_Human_Resources_Administration_20071001.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 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 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 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies 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 both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers 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, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH 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. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or 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. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the 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 or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments 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 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments 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 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ 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 the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 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. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ 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. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 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 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 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, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
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 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 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 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies 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 both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers 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, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH 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. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or 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. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the 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 or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments 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 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments 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 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ 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 the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 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. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ 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. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 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 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 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, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
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 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 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 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies 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 both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers 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, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH 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. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or 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. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the 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 or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments 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 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments 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 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ 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 the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 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. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ 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. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 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 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 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, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
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 9, 2022 E-21-DC-04-001, July 1, 2021 through September 9, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $1,425 Assistance Listings number and name: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Award numbers and years: AZ0009L9T001912, October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021; AZ0118L9T002008, February 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022; AZ0011L9T002013, May 1, 2021 through April 30, 2022; AZ0173L9T002004, July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022; AZ0009L9T002013, October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Questioned costs: $46,352 Compliance requirement: Subrecipient monitoring Total questioned costs: $47,777 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its federal award terms, the Department of Housing (ADOH) and Department of Economic Security (DES) reimbursed 1 nonprofit organization subrecipient for federal program costs totaling $47,777 during fiscal year 2022 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 51 reimbursements that included Continuum of Care Program and Emergency Solutions Grant Program costs totaling $446,695 and $10,692 for the year, respectively, and found that the departments reimbursed the subrecipient for: • $35,562 for financial and accounting services, travel, and supplies 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 both departments as required by federal laws. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, neither department verified that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. We noted that the allocation method used may have resulted in multiple programs being overbilled for these services by up to $5,087. (ADOH and DES) • $7,274 for bookkeeping services that were not adequately supported by sufficiently detailed invoices and a signed contract having a specified price rate for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts paid were appropriate. Further, the departments reimbursed the Treasurer’s family member, whose bookkeeping services company was not disclosed as a conflict of interest to the departments as required by federal regulations. Also, the subrecipient allocated these costs to other federal programs and nonfederal activities; however, the departments did not verify that the allocation method the subrecipient used was reasonable or that the costs, as allocated, were allowed by the programs’ requirements. (ADOH and DES) • $4,365 for repairs and maintenance, travel, and supplies that were paid to another principal officer who performed various handyman services, including plumbing, painting, and building repairs, that were not adequately supported by a contract having specified price rates for the services and terms; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were appropriate. Further, ADOH reimbursed the principal officer, whose services were not disclosed as a conflict of interest to ADOH as required by its contract with the subrecipient and federal regulations. (ADOH) • $576 for incentive payments to the subrecipient’s executive director without documentation demonstrating it was authorized by an agreement, reasonable for the services performed as provided in the subrecipient’s policies, and consistent with compensation paid for similar work in other activities; therefore, we were unable to verify if the amounts reimbursed by ADOH were allowable. (ADOH) Additionally, contrary to federal regulations, the departments had not ensured that the subrecipient implemented competitive purchasing procedures when procuring the professional services and handyman services described above, and the subrecipient was unable to provide documentation that it had competitively procured the services. (ADOH and DES) The Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant Programs were not audited as major federal programs for the State’s fiscal year 2022 single audit; therefore, the scope of our review was not sufficient to determine whether the departments or their subrecipients complied with all applicable federal requirements for these programs. During the audit, we became aware of the potentially noncompliant 51 reimbursements involving 1 of the departments’ nonprofit subrecipients with which they partner to carry out federal and State programs, including the Continuum of Care Program, the Emergency Solutions Grants Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which was audited as a major federal program for fiscal year 2022, as well as the State Housing Trust Fund. Our review of select reimbursements to this subrecipient resulted in similar findings for the TANF federal program and the State Housing Trust Fund that are described in items 2022-114 and 2022-05, respectively. Effect—The departments’ lack of required monitoring increased the risk that the monies it awarded to 1 nonprofit organization may not have been spent in accordance with the award terms and program requirements. Further, the departments’ reimbursing the subrecipient for $47,777 of unallowable or unsupported costs and/or costs paid to the nonprofit organization’s principal officers 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, the departments may be required to return these monies to the federal agencies in accordance with federal requirements.1 Cause—ADOH 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. Also, ADOH had not properly assessed this subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with its award contract and program requirements to determine the level of monitoring procedures or training the subrecipient needed. For example, ADOH was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of principal officers’ conflicts of interest so that ADOH could ensure that those principal officers or 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. Further, ADOH personnel responsible for reviewing and approving the subrecipient’s reimbursement requests reported to us that they were trained to not follow its policies and procedures but, instead, to approve any costs that had been previously reimbursed. As reported in finding 2022-114, although the 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 or training the subrecipient needed. For example, the Division was unaware that the subrecipient had not informed it of a principal officer’s conflicts of interest so that the Division could ensure that the principal officer or their immediate family member were not involved in decision-making related to those conflicts and selectively review the related costs and activities for compliance purposes. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Departments 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 CFR §§200.332, .339, and .521). Federal regulations provide that monitoring procedures the Departments 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 CFR §200.332[e]). Further, federal regulations require the Departments’ 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 the Departments any potential conflicts of interest.2 Finally, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Departments should: 1. Immediately stop reimbursing the nonprofit subrecipient for costs that are unsupported, unallowable, and/or paid to the nonprofit subrecipient’s principal officers or their immediate family member in violation of conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements without obtaining documentation to support they comply with the program’s requirements and take appropriate enforcement actions in accordance with its subaward contract. (ADOH and DES) 2. Update its written policies and procedures for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests to include a process to ensure costs are adequately supported and allowable in accordance with program requirements. (ADOH and DES) 3. Train personnel responsible for reviewing and approving subrecipient reimbursement requests on how to identify costs that are unallowable under federal regulations. (ADOH) 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. (ADOH and DES) 5. Ensure subrecipients allocate allowable costs using a reasonable basis, use competitive purchasing standards when procuring goods and services, and disclose in writing to the Departments any potential conflicts of interest. The Departments may need to provide training and technical assistance to subrecipients that addresses these compliance areas, including the Departments’ 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. (ADOH and DES) 6. Continue to work with the nonprofit subrecipient to resolve the $47,777 in unallowable costs, including recovering these monies from the subrecipient and assessing the continued need to use this subrecipient for services. (ADOH and DES) 7. Work with the federal agencies to resolve the $47,777 of unallowable costs that it reimbursed, which may involve returning monies to the agencies. (ADOH and DES) 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 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 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 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, and 24 CFR §578.95 and 45 CFR §75.112.
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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 number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirement: Eligibility Questioned costs: $10,000 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Division) made benefits payments totaling $10,000 to individuals for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program for which it lacked documentation to support that it paid only those individuals who were eligible to receive them. We tested 67 individuals who received benefit payments and found that the Division made benefit payments to 5 individuals totaling $10,000 for which it lacked documentation to support the eligibility determinations.1 This calculates to a 7.5 percent exception rate for our 67 individual eligibility sample, totaling $133,000. Effect—The Division’s payment of $10,000 of program benefits for which it lacked documentation showing the 5 individuals were eligible beneficiaries increases the risk that the Division may not have been able to effectively prevent or detect fraud. Consequently, the Division may be required to return $10,000 to the federal agency.2 Cause—The Division’s management reported that it contracted with a third party to implement and use a new, temporary benefits system for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.1 When the program and the Department’s contract with the third party ended, the Division did not ensure that the third-party contractor provided it with a complete set of program documentation that was derived from the system. Criteria—Federal regulations require the Division to retain all federal program records for a period of 3 years from the submission date of the final expenditure report to the federal agency (2 CFR §200.334). In addition, 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—This program ended on December 31, 2021, and the Division’s management reported to us that it received all the records related to the federal program from the third-party contractor when operations of the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program and related benefits system ceased.1 However, to the extent possible for this program and for all future federal programs the Division administers, the Division should: 1. Ensure subaward entities provide all records and the Division retains all records relating to a federal award for a period of 3 years from the date it submits the final expenditure report. 2. Work with the State of Arizona Office of the Governor and U.S. Department of the Treasury to resolve the $10,000 in questioned costs.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 and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 To be eligible for the State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible for Unemployment Insurance program benefits in Arizona between the period of May 8, 2021, and May 15, 2021. The benefit payments consisted of bonus payments of either $1,000 or $2,000, with a total maximum benefit amount of $2,000 per eligible individual. The State’s Return-to-Work Bonus Program was funded by 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 Arizona Governor’s Office. The Department of Economic Security operated the program from July 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, and the program ended on December 31, 2021. (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-070121-02). 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 of the Governor, 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).