Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc.

2023-001 Material Weakness – Subrecipient Monitoring – Material Noncompliance Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Recovery Funds Criteria: 2 CFR 200.332(b) requires a pass-through entity to 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. 2 CFR 200.332(d) requires the passthrough entity to 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. Statement of Condition: Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc. did not document their evaluation of the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and perform monitoring of the subrecipient, as required. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs could not be determined. Context: Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc.’s subrecipient was required by their contract to provide all requests for disbursement from the grantor to Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc. for review and approval, prior to requesting the funds from the grantor. Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc. did not receive nor did they review the three (3) draw requests during the period. Additionally, no other processes or controls were in place over the subrecipient monitoring requirement. Effect: Failure to adequately monitor the activity of a subrecipient may result in unallowable costs being charged to the federal program. Cause: Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc. did not have proper controls in place to monitor their subrecipient. Management was unaware the subrecipient was expending passthrough funds and receiving disbursements from the federal grantor. Recommendation: We recommend management review their processes and controls surrounding subrecipients to ensure appropriate oversight is maintained and compliance with all program and contract requirements occurs. Management Response: LSS received a grant from Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) which was ‘passed through’ to a tax credit project entity (the subrecipient of the grant). The agreements governing the grant to Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc. (LSS) and loan to the subrecipient specifically called for multiple layers of review and approval by the subrecipient, IHDA, other project lenders, a title company, and at IHDA’s request, LSS. The lead developer, a member of the tax credit project entity, is responsible for managing the construction project and for preparation of all draw requests. The agreements specifically called for the tax credit project entity (as subrecipient) to certify to LSS that the draw package met the grant agreement requirements and specifications, on which certification LSS would then rely to make a corresponding certification to IHDA that the draw package met the grant agreement requirements and specifications. In this instance, the lead developer properly prepared certain draw requests (as the subrecipient), made the required certifications, and submitted them directly to IHDA without informing LSS of such draw request. Rather than requiring strict compliance with the grant agreements and rejecting the subrecipient’s draw request for the lack of LSS’s certification, IHDA elected to accept a direct certification from the subrecipient and effectively waive the LSS certification requirement. We agree that LSS did not have a monitoring system in place to ensure that the subrecipient informed LSS of draw requests and ensure that LSS’s intervening certification to IHDA be made, however there are other factors impacting the program: 1. IHDA did not notify the subrecipient or LSS under the terms of the grant documents that the intervening LSS certification was missing, and instead elected to disburse proceeds directly to the subrecipient based on the subrecipient’s direct certification which served as a waiver of the requirement of the intervening LSS certification. 2. All draw requests were approved by the contractor, the architect, the construction lender, and the title company, which multiple additional layers of review put into place by LSS and IHDA as part of grant document negotiation ensured that grant funds were properly utilized for qualifying project expenses. 3. All parties have been made aware of this issue and it has not resulted in any financial, operational or reputation implications. We have put in place a process to ensure all draw requests come to LSS for review and documented sign-off approval before submission to IHDA.