EIN: 061744054
UEI: ESGCGXXLUMG7
Audited by: Baker Tilly US, LLP
Oversight agency: 84 [Department of Education]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 7, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on January 16, 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 July 16, 2026 (56 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on December 20, 2024 — management decision was due June 20, 2025.
Criteria: Awards must be coordinated among the various programs and with other federal and nonfederal aid (need and non-need based aid) to ensure that total aid is not awarded in excess of the student’s financial need (34 CFR § 668.42 FWS and 34 CFR § 682.301). Per 34 CFR § 685.200, a Direct Subsidized Loan borrower must demonstrate financial need in accordance with Title IV, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Upon packaging a student’s aid, schools are required to calculate the student’s need based on the expected family contribution, estimated financial assistance, and estimated cost of attendance. Condition/context: A sample of 25 students out of a population of 573 students who received disbursements of student financial assistance federal awards was selected. The financial need was calculated for each student, with the student’s estimated financial assistance also deducted. One student was identified as being over awarded by $16,700. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Questioned costs: Less than the questioned cost threshold of $25,000. Cause/Effect: This occurred because of a lack of properly documented control procedures surrounding the recording and review of budget adjustments. The student received multiple adjustments to their cost of attendance and award due to changes in enrollment status. One student was over awarded by $16,700. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to focus on improving internal controls surrounding the calculation and posting of, as well as review of, budget adjustments. We recommend further that the University ensure this process is well documented in a formal policy. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding as presented. Corrective action taken is as follows: Management has completed a review and refinement of steps already in place, specifically addressing the processing of budgets for students who are off-cycle during a semester. Management has drafted a quality control process document to address the deficiency.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Awards must be coordinated among the various programs and with other federal and nonfederal aid (need and non-need based aid) to ensure that total aid is not awarded in excess of the student’s financial need (34 CFR § 668.42 FWS and 34 CFR § 682.301). Per 34 CFR § 685.200, a Direct Subsidized Loan borrower must demonstrate financial need in accordance with Title IV, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Upon packaging a student’s aid, schools are required to calculate the student’s need based on the expected family contribution, estimated financial assistance, and estimated cost of attendance. Condition/context: A sample of 25 students out of a population of 573 students who received disbursements of student financial assistance federal awards was selected. The financial need was calculated for each student, with the student’s estimated financial assistance also deducted. One student was identified as being over awarded by $16,700. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Questioned costs: Less than the questioned cost threshold of $25,000. Cause/Effect: This occurred because of a lack of properly documented control procedures surrounding the recording and review of budget adjustments. The student received multiple adjustments to their cost of attendance and award due to changes in enrollment status. One student was over awarded by $16,700. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to focus on improving internal controls surrounding the calculation and posting of, as well as review of, budget adjustments. We recommend further that the University ensure this process is well documented in a formal policy. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding as presented. Corrective action taken is as follows: Management has completed a review and refinement of steps already in place, specifically addressing the processing of budgets for students who are off-cycle during a semester. Management has drafted a quality control process document to address the deficiency.
Recommendation: The auditors recommend the University continue to focus on improving internal controls surrounding the calculation and posting of, as well as review of, budget adjustments. The auditors recommend further that the University ensure this process is well documented in a formal policy. Action taken: Identified common causation factors that contributed to the finding. In this particular case, the student’s budget was adjusted more than once due to changes in both her graduation date and her tuition rate during her final year. Her budget was not adjusted correctly. The issues identified are: o Identifying when tuition charge has been adjusted. o Having another financial aid staff member review changes to the budget adjustment(s). The following actions were taken: o Reached out for assistance identifying students whose tuition has been reduced. Was provided with a report we can run before financial aid disburses, “FA Registration”, which will capture all changes to each student’s tuition. o Have included running this report in the steps completed prior to aid disbursement. o Reviewed and refined steps already in place, specifically addressing the processing of budgets for students who are off cycle during a semester. Steps are outlined in document “23-24 Budget Adjustment Quality Control Process” and include: Templates to be used for correct budgets. Assigned two-letter comment codes that will identify students with budget adjustment for off-cycle attendance. Created a selection set in PowerFAIDS to capture students with these comment codes in a report. Created a task in PowerFAIDS that will assign review of completed budget adjustments to a specific FA staff member. She will review the calculations and sign off on them. These actions have been implemented effective immediately. Name of Responsible Party: Laura Pendleton, Director of Financial Aid Anticipated completion date: October 30, 2024
FAC accepted this audit on February 22, 2024 — management decision was due August 22, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on December 5, 2022 — management decision was due June 5, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on December 2, 2021 — management decision was due June 2, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on December 22, 2020 — management decision was due June 22, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on January 9, 2019 — management decision was due July 9, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on November 13, 2017 — management decision was due May 13, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on October 17, 2016 — management decision was due April 17, 2017.
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 Washington →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Add it to a monitored group and get alerted when a new audit, finding, repeat finding, or management-decision deadline shows up — instead of checking back.
Checking several at once? Portfolio view →
© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
