Finding 479364 (2023-001)

Significant Deficiency Repeat Finding
Requirement
N
Questioned Costs
-
Year
2023
Accepted
2024-07-24

AI Summary

  • Core Issue: Invoices for USDA orders lack consistent signoff from recipient agency representatives, impacting record-keeping compliance.
  • Impacted Requirements: This finding relates to 7 CFR Section 250.19(a), which mandates proper documentation for the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  • Recommended Follow-Up: The Food Bank should ensure that recipient agencies sign invoices before leaving with goods to maintain accurate records.

Finding Text

2023-001 Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pass-Through Entity: State of New York Executive Department of General Services Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.568 and 10.569 Pass-through Grant Numbers: 4NY810809, 4NY430803, and 8NY200100 Program Name: The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), Food Distribution Cluster Criteria: 7 CFR Section 250.19(a) identifies requirements related to record keeping for this major program. It is important to note the Food Bank appeared to maintain the appropriate supporting documents and required components, this finding relates to one component regarding lack of a signoff not lack of documentation. Condition: During our testing, we noted the following: The invoices created as a result of USDA orders being made were not consistently signed off onby the recipient agency representative upon pick up or delivery of the commodities. Cause: The Food Bank will always try to get these signatures but there are instances where the recipient agency representative will leave without signing. There is no check for the signoff prior to the recipient agency departing with the goods. Effect: The Food Bank does not have consistent documentation, via a signoff, that goods noted on the invoice were picked up by the recipient agency. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: We selected 40 USDA orders across all recipient agencies. 10 of which were from the top 5 volume sites in 2023 and 30 picked haphazardly. Of these 40, there were 3 instances where the invoice was missing a signature from the recipient agency. The invoice is generated from the same software used by the Food Bank to track inventory throughout the year and at year end. During our testing of the components of this software, specifically, values, receipts of inventory, distributions of inventory, and year end test counts of inventory, we found these transactions to be properly supported and recorded. Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The Food Bank should ensure that when the recipient agencies pick up or have orders delivered, they do not leave without the invoice being properly signed off on. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendations.

Categories

Subrecipient Monitoring Allowable Costs / Cost Principles HUD Housing Programs Equipment & Real Property Management

Other Findings in this Audit

  • 479363 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 479365 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 479366 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1055805 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1055806 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1055807 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat
  • 1055808 2023-001
    Significant Deficiency Repeat

Programs in Audit

ALN Program Name Expenditures
10.569 Emergency Food Assistance Program (food Commodities) $13.86M
14.228 Community Development Block Grants/state's Program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii $5.47M
10.187 Commodity Credit CORP $297,104
10.568 Emergency Food Assistance Program (administrative Costs) $173,985
10.561 State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program $146,172
97.024 Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program $21,237