EIN: 060888719
UEI: X277VJPJNMT2
Audited by: CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP
Oversight agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 31, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on February 26, 2026. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by August 26, 2026 (7 days ago).
What is a management decision? →During testing of payroll and other expense transactions, it was noted that the Organization does not have an appropriate or reasonable cost allocation plan. Nonpayroll related costs are not material to the grant, but if a cost required allocation among various grants, the proper methodology is not in place to ensure that happens. In addition, no contemporaneous time records or supporting allocation documentation were maintained to substantiate the payroll expenditures charged to the grant. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: The Organization charged costs based upon the budget, rather than in proportion to the benefits received to the programs. While costs in excess of this grant award were incurred for this program during the year, the proper controls are not in place to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Cause: Staff were not trained in the requirement to maintain accurate time and effort documentation. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation, there is a risk that federal programs were charged for costs that did not directly benefit them, which could ultimately lead to potential questioned costs and repayments obligations. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: If management were to allocate costs to various programs benefited, we recommend that they update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. They should implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Social Services Block Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.667 Award Period: January 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.405 and §200.430, costs must be allocable to a particular federal award in proportion to the benefits received, and payroll charges must be supported by underlying records that accurately reflect the work performed. Condition: During testing of payroll and other expense transactions, it was noted that the Organization does not have an appropriate or reasonable cost allocation plan. Nonpayroll related costs are not material to the grant, but if a cost required allocation among various grants, the proper methodology is not in place to ensure that happens. In addition, no contemporaneous time records or supporting allocation documentation were maintained to substantiate the payroll expenditures charged to the grant. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: The Organization charged costs based upon the budget, rather than in proportion to the benefits received to the programs. While costs in excess of this grant award were incurred for this program during the year, the proper controls are not in place to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Cause: Staff were not trained in the requirement to maintain accurate time and effort documentation. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation, there is a risk that federal programs were charged for costs that did not directly benefit them, which could ultimately lead to potential questioned costs and repayments obligations. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: If management were to allocate costs to various programs benefited, we recommend that they update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. They should implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Recommendation: Update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. Implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management will establish and implement formal procedures to ensure the proper allocation of allowable costs across all grant components. These procedures will include appropriate oversight mechanisms to verify accuracy, compliance with grant requirements, and consistent application of cost-allocation methodologies. Names of the contact persons responsible for corrective action: Robert Loiseau, Finance Director and Gary Beaulieu, Executive Director
During testing of both the annual financial report and the programmatic reports, it was identified that there is no segregation of duties between the individuals preparing the reports and those reviewing and submitting them as required by the grant terms. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: While reports were filed timely, there is no segregation of duties to ensure proper preparation and review procedures are performed. Cause: The organization has limited accounting staff, which makes it difficult to separate responsibilities among different employees. Effect: Without adequate segregation of duties, there is an increased risk of material misstatement in the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: Management agrees with the finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Segregation of Duties in Financial Reporting Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Social Services Block Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.667 Award Period: January 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Best practices and internal control frameworks (ie, COSO) require segregation of duties to ensure that no one individual has control over all aspects of a financial transaction. This reduces the risk of error or fraud going undetected. Condition: During testing of both the annual financial report and the programmatic reports, it was identified that there is no segregation of duties between the individuals preparing the reports and those reviewing and submitting them as required by the grant terms. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: While reports were filed timely, there is no segregation of duties to ensure proper preparation and review procedures are performed. Cause: The organization has limited accounting staff, which makes it difficult to separate responsibilities among different employees. Effect: Without adequate segregation of duties, there is an increased risk of material misstatement in the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: Management agrees with the finding.
Lack of Segregation of Duties in Financial Reporting - Compliance Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Due to staffing limitations, the organization has not been able to implement the optimal level of oversight. Going forward, all reports prepared by the Accountant will undergo a formal review and approval process by the Treasurer to strengthen internal controls and ensure appropriate oversight. Names of the contact persons responsible for corrective action: Robert Loiseau, Finance Director and Gary Beaulieu, Executive Director
FAC accepted this audit on February 25, 2026 — management decision was due August 25, 2026.
During testing of payroll and other expense transactions, it was noted that the Organization does not have an appropriate or reasonable cost allocation plan. Nonpayroll related costs are not material to the grant, but if a cost required allocation among various grants, the proper methodology is not in place to ensure that happens. In addition, no contemporaneous time records or supporting allocation documentation were maintained to substantiate the payroll expenditures charged to the grant. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: The Organization charged costs based upon the budget, rather than in proportion to the benefits received to the programs. While costs in excess of this grant award were incurred for this program during the year, the proper controls are not in place to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Cause: Staff were not trained in the requirement to maintain accurate time and effort documentation. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation, there is a risk that federal programs were charged for costs that did not directly benefit them, which could ultimately lead to potential questioned costs and repayments obligations. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: If management were to allocate costs to various programs benefited, we recommend that they update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. They should implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Social Services Block Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.667 Award Period: January 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance • Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.405 and §200.430, costs must be allocable to a particular federal award in proportion to the benefits received, and payroll charges must be supported by underlying records that accurately reflect the work performed. Condition: During testing of payroll and other expense transactions, it was noted that the Organization does not have an appropriate or reasonable cost allocation plan. Nonpayroll related costs are not material to the grant, but if a cost required allocation among various grants, the proper methodology is not in place to ensure that happens. In addition, no contemporaneous time records or supporting allocation documentation were maintained to substantiate the payroll expenditures charged to the grant. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: The Organization charged costs based upon the budget, rather than in proportion to the benefits received to the programs. While costs in excess of this grant award were incurred for this program during the year, the proper controls are not in place to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Cause: Staff were not trained in the requirement to maintain accurate time and effort documentation. Effect: Due to the lack of supporting documentation, there is a risk that federal programs were charged for costs that did not directly benefit them, which could ultimately lead to potential questioned costs and repayments obligations. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: If management were to allocate costs to various programs benefited, we recommend that they update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. They should implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Recommendation: Update and revise the cost allocation plan annually to reflect actual program usage including the board of directors approval. Implement a time and effort reporting system for all shared staff and provide training to ensure compliance with federal requirements. This should include proper review and approval of all costs, explicitly documented. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management will establish and implement formal procedures to ensure the proper allocation of allowable costs across all grant components. These procedures will include appropriate oversight mechanisms to verify accuracy, compliance with grant requirements, and consistent application of cost-allocation methodologies. Names of the contact persons responsible for corrective action: Robert Loiseau, Finance Director and Gary Beaulieu, Executive Director
During testing of both the annual financial report and the programmatic reports, it was identified that there is no segregation of duties between the individuals preparing the reports and those reviewing and submitting them as required by the grant terms. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: While reports were filed timely, there is no segregation of duties to ensure proper preparation and review procedures are performed. Cause: The organization has limited accounting staff, which makes it difficult to separate responsibilities among different employees. Effect: Without adequate segregation of duties, there is an increased risk of material misstatement in the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: Management agrees with the finding.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Segregation of Duties in Financial Reporting Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal program title: Social Services Block Grant Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.667 Award Period: January 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027 Type of Finding: • Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Best practices and internal control frameworks (ie, COSO) require segregation of duties to ensure that no one individual has control over all aspects of a financial transaction. This reduces the risk of error or fraud going undetected. Condition: During testing of both the annual financial report and the programmatic reports, it was identified that there is no segregation of duties between the individuals preparing the reports and those reviewing and submitting them as required by the grant terms. Questioned costs: No questioned costs Context: While reports were filed timely, there is no segregation of duties to ensure proper preparation and review procedures are performed. Cause: The organization has limited accounting staff, which makes it difficult to separate responsibilities among different employees. Effect: Without adequate segregation of duties, there is an increased risk of material misstatement in the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Views of Responsible Officials of the Auditee: Management agrees with the finding.
Lack of Segregation of Duties in Financial Reporting - Compliance Recommendation: Management should reassign responsibilities so that the preparation, review and submission of required reports is performed by different individuals. If staffing limitations prevent full segregation, compensating controls, such as periodic independent reviews by a supervisor or board member, should be implemented. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Due to staffing limitations, the organization has not been able to implement the optimal level of oversight. Going forward, all reports prepared by the Accountant will undergo a formal review and approval process by the Treasurer to strengthen internal controls and ensure appropriate oversight. Names of the contact persons responsible for corrective action: Robert Loiseau, Finance Director and Gary Beaulieu, Executive Director
FAC accepted this audit on November 27, 2024 — management decision was due May 27, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on February 6, 2024 — management decision was due August 6, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on December 18, 2022 — management decision was due June 18, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 3, 2022 — management decision was due July 3, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on January 26, 2021 — management decision was due July 26, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on November 18, 2018 — management decision was due May 18, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on November 16, 2017 — management decision was due May 16, 2018.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in Connecticut →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
