EIN: 396003910
UEI: YMA7UPN87VC5
Audited by: JOHNSON BLOCK & COMPANY, INC.
Oversight agency: 84 [Department of Education]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 2, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on January 23, 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 23, 2026 (42 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on January 24, 2025 — management decision was due July 24, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on January 30, 2024 — management decision was due July 30, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on December 9, 2022 — management decision was due June 9, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on February 6, 2022 — management decision was due August 6, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on February 7, 2021 — management decision was due August 7, 2021.
Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control. Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding #2020-001 ? Segregation of Duties (Prior Year Finding #2019-001) Criteria: Internal controls should be in place that provide adequate segregation of duties. Condition: Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control. Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties.
Finding #2020-001 ? Segregation of Duties (Prior Year Finding #2019-001) Criteria: Internal controls should be in place that provide adequate segregation of duties. Condition: Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control. Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties. Contact Person: Demetri Andrews, Business Administrator Anticipated Completion: Not Applicable
2019-001
FAC accepted this audit on November 11, 2019 — management decision was due May 11, 2020.
Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control.Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding #2019-001 ? Segregation of Duties Criteria: Internal controls should be in place that provide adequate segregation of duties. Condition: Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control.Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties.
Finding #2019-001 ? Segregation of Duties (Prior Year Finding #2018-001) Criteria: Internal controls should be in place that provide adequate segregation of duties. Condition: Management is responsible for the design, installation and maintenance of an appropriate system of internal control. Proper segregation of duties is an important aspect of any control system. The limited size of the District?s office staff prevents the ideal segregation of functions. The persons processing accounts payable are not always separate from those ordering or receiving goods or services, the person initiating electronic fund transfers is not separate from those authorizing, confirming or reconciling the transactions, there is not an appropriate system for review and approval of new vendors, and bank reconciliations are not reviewed and approved by someone independent of the accounts payable/disbursement cycle. Also, persons preparing the payroll are not independent of other personnel duties or restricted from access to the payroll account, and changes to employee rates and data in the payroll system are not approved or verified by someone independent of payroll processing. Cause: Limited number of personnel. Effect: Because of the lack of segregation of duties, errors or irregularities could occur and not be detected on a timely basis. Recommendation: Procedures should be implemented segregating duties among different employees. Management should continue to maintain a working knowledge of matters relating to the District?s operations. Response: We agree with this finding but do not believe it is cost effective to increase the office staff in an attempt to bring about a more effective segregation of duties. Contact Person: Demetri Andrews Anticipated Completion: Not Applicable
2018-001
The Wisconsin DPI conducted administrative review of the District?s child nutrition programs. During that review, they examined application verifications and found that two free and reduced-price applications were verified, but three applications were required to be verified. Cause: In determining the number of applications to verify, the District applied general rules for rounding rather than rounding up to the nearest whole number. Effect: The District did not verify the required number of applications and was required to respond with corrective actions to DPI.It is possible that participants in the program were receiving benefits inconsistent with income levels. Recommendation: When determining the number of applications to verify, round up to the nearest whole number. Response: We acknowledge that when establishing the sample size needed for verification that fractions or decimals should be rounded up to the nearest whole number for the sample size of verified applications. We have responded to the DPI regarding this corrective action.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding #2019-003 ? Eligibility Verification for Child Nutrition Cluster Criteria: The District had 77 child nutrition applications subject to verification, and the standard sample size for verification is 3 percent. 3 percent of 77 applications is 2.13, which must be rounded up to the nearest whole number to a required sample of 3 applications. Condition: The Wisconsin DPI conducted administrative review of the District?s child nutrition programs. During that review, they examined application verifications and found that two free and reduced-price applications were verified, but three applications were required to be verified. Cause: In determining the number of applications to verify, the District applied general rules for rounding rather than rounding up to the nearest whole number. Effect: The District did not verify the required number of applications and was required to respond with corrective actions to DPI.It is possible that participants in the program were receiving benefits inconsistent with income levels. Recommendation: When determining the number of applications to verify, round up to the nearest whole number. Response: We acknowledge that when establishing the sample size needed for verification that fractions or decimals should be rounded up to the nearest whole number for the sample size of verified applications. We have responded to the DPI regarding this corrective action.
Finding #2019-003 ? Eligibility Verification for Child Nutrition Cluster Criteria: The District had 77 child nutrition applications subject to verification, and the standard sample size for verification is 3 percent. 3 percent of 77 applications is 2.13, which must be rounded up to the nearest whole number to a required sample of 3 applications. Condition: The Wisconsin DPI conducted administrative review of the District?s child nutrition programs. During that review, they examined application verifications and found that two free and reduced-price applications were verified, but three applications were required to be verified. Cause: In determining the number of applications to verify, the District applied general rules for rounding rather than rounding up to the nearest whole number. Effect: The District did not verify the required number of applications and was required to respond with corrective actions to DPI. It is possible that participants in the program were receiving benefits inconsistent with income levels. Recommendation: When determining the number of applications to verify, round up to the nearest whole number. Response: We acknowledge that when establishing the sample size needed for verification that fractions or decimals should be rounded up to the nearest whole number for the sample size of verified applications. We have responded to the DPI regarding this corrective action. Contact Person: Demetri Andrews Anticipated Completion: July 1, 2019
FAC accepted this audit on November 5, 2018 — management decision was due May 5, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-001
FAC accepted this audit on November 1, 2017 — management decision was due May 1, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-001
FAC accepted this audit on December 15, 2016 — management decision was due June 15, 2017.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-001
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴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 Wisconsin →
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.
