EIN: 416005861
UEI: HMUPNBMALMG5
Audited by: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor
Oversight agency: 93 [Department of Health and Human Services]
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 December 19, 2025. 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 June 19, 2026 (77 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on January 13, 2025 — management decision was due July 13, 2025.
For two procurements tested above the micro-purchase threshold, documentation of the history of the procurement, providing full and open competition, and a cost or price analysis was not available. For the one covered transaction tested, the verification for suspended or debarred vendors was not performed before entering into the covered transaction. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Two of five contracts were tested for compliance with applicable federal regulations. Additionally, one covered transaction was subject to suspension and debarment. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: It cannot be determined that the contracting process was open and fair because the County did not document the rationale for the contractor selection. It also cannot be determined that an entity was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County. Cause: The County did not maintain the necessary documentation to allow the auditor to test for procurement and suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation on the history of a procurement, provide for full and open competition, and perform a cost or price analysis to support compliance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations §§ 200.318, 200.319, and 200.324. We further recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-004 Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2023 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award Number and Year: SLFRP1274, 2021 Pass-Through Agency: N/A – Federal Direct Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.318(i) states that the County must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Additionally, the County must follow further federal guidance over full and open competition as provided in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.319, and perform a cost or price analysis as provided in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.324. Federal requirements prohibit non-federal entities from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 180.300 describes a required verification process. Prior to entering into the transaction, one of the following must be performed: (1) checking SAM.gov exclusions, (2) collecting a certification, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction. Condition: For two procurements tested above the micro-purchase threshold, documentation of the history of the procurement, providing full and open competition, and a cost or price analysis was not available. For the one covered transaction tested, the verification for suspended or debarred vendors was not performed before entering into the covered transaction. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Two of five contracts were tested for compliance with applicable federal regulations. Additionally, one covered transaction was subject to suspension and debarment. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: It cannot be determined that the contracting process was open and fair because the County did not document the rationale for the contractor selection. It also cannot be determined that an entity was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County. Cause: The County did not maintain the necessary documentation to allow the auditor to test for procurement and suspension and debarment. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation on the history of a procurement, provide for full and open competition, and perform a cost or price analysis to support compliance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations §§ 200.318, 200.319, and 200.324. We further recommend the County maintain documentation to demonstrate that vendors were not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from conducting business with the County; this documentation should be completed prior to entering into a covered transaction. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2023-004 Finding Title: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kris Vipond, Assistant Finance Director Corrective Action Planned: Directors in departments receiving federal funding will document the history of procurement transactions, including contract selection and rationale, in accordance with federal regulations. They will also verify vendors are not debarred or suspended, or that other exclusions apply prior to entering into contracts and will maintain the appropriate documentation. In addition, they will work with other internal County departments that may purchase on their behalf to document and verify in a similar manner. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2025
FAC accepted this audit on February 21, 2024 — management decision was due August 21, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2023 — management decision was due July 8, 2023.
The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS, which is used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, there were circumstances where information was not correctly updated or input in MAXIS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: ? Two instances where there was no DHS Adoption Assistance Letter. ? One instance where there was no signed Adoption Assistance Agreement. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS and verification of eligibility determining factors increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS correctly or that all required information was obtained and/or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations is properly input or updated in MAXIS, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-005 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: 2020-006 Repeat Finding Since: 2017 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Award Number and Year: 2105MN5ADM, 2105MN5MAP, 2021 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Condition: The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS, which is used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, there were circumstances where information was not correctly updated or input in MAXIS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: ? Two instances where there was no DHS Adoption Assistance Letter. ? One instance where there was no signed Adoption Assistance Agreement. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS and verification of eligibility determining factors increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS correctly or that all required information was obtained and/or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations is properly input or updated in MAXIS, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number 2021-005 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (Assistance Listing 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Deb Sjostrom, Human Services Director and Kendra Huseth, Human Services Finance Manager Corrective Action Planned: The agency will complete case reviews with an emphasis on accurate data entry and will continue to train staff regarding the importance of ensuring the information entered into the system is accurate and consistent with any verification needed. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/22
2020-006
FAC accepted this audit on December 19, 2021 — management decision was due June 19, 2022.
The County claimed payroll costs of $38,114 and expenditures of $599,616 paid outside the period of availability on the revised November Local Government Expenditure Report. Questioned Costs: $637,730 relating to payroll and grant expenditures reported. Context: The County identified additional payroll expenditures related to the County?s Public Health and Public Safety employees which were not reported as grant expenditures, but were eligible. It is likely this unreported amount exceeded the known and likely questioned costs. For items that were outside the period of performance, the County could not provide documentation of a supply chain disruption. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County reported expenditures as relating to the CRF program which are not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and period of performance requirements. Cause: The inclusion of payroll costs and expenditures for December 2020 was an oversight by County staff. The cities and towns in Otter Tail County remitted $541,460 of unexpended CRF funds to Otter Tail County in November 2020. The County attempted to spend the remitted funds within the time constraints, however, payments related to these funds did not occur until December 2020. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement procedures to follow the guidance related to the CRF, CFDA No. 21.019 and claim costs expended under the grant within the covered period. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-004 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance, and Reporting Program: U.S. Department of the Treasury?s COVID-19 ? Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019), Award No. SLT0016, 2020 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Management and Budget Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ?200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Section 5001 (d) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) provides the eligible purposes for which Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may be used and generally requires that payments are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency during the covered period. Additionally, the State of Minnesota Office of Management and Budget FAQs for Local Governments receiving Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) from the State of Minnesota (dated October 20, 2020) states in question 11 that, for counties: ??any amount of aid remaining unexpended by an eligible county by December 1, 2020, must be returned to Minnesota Management and Budget by December 10, 2020.? It also lists two exceptions, one of which is ?CRF eligible payroll expenses incurred through Dec. 1 (for counties) are allowed, even if not paid until after Dec. 1 (for counties).? The other exception is ?Eligible items ordered for delivery prior to Dec. 1 (for Counties) that have not yet been received due to supply chain disruption are allowed, even if not paid until after Dec. 1 for counties.? Condition: The County claimed payroll costs of $38,114 and expenditures of $599,616 paid outside the period of availability on the revised November Local Government Expenditure Report. Questioned Costs: $637,730 relating to payroll and grant expenditures reported. Context: The County identified additional payroll expenditures related to the County?s Public Health and Public Safety employees which were not reported as grant expenditures, but were eligible. It is likely this unreported amount exceeded the known and likely questioned costs. For items that were outside the period of performance, the County could not provide documentation of a supply chain disruption. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County reported expenditures as relating to the CRF program which are not in compliance with the activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and period of performance requirements. Cause: The inclusion of payroll costs and expenditures for December 2020 was an oversight by County staff. The cities and towns in Otter Tail County remitted $541,460 of unexpended CRF funds to Otter Tail County in November 2020. The County attempted to spend the remitted funds within the time constraints, however, payments related to these funds did not occur until December 2020. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement procedures to follow the guidance related to the CRF, CFDA No. 21.019 and claim costs expended under the grant within the covered period. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledged
Finding Number 2020-004 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance, and Reporting Program: COVID-19 ? Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kris Vipond, Assistant Finance Director Corrective Action Planned: Otter Tail County will revise the CARES report if required by the State of Minnesota and substitute eligible costs for those that are considered out of compliance. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2021
The following exceptions were noted in the three subrecipients tested: ? The County did not document risk assessment procedures performed over its subrecipients, nor are there documented policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. ? The three subrecipients did not have sufficient monitoring procedures performed over them. ? One subrecipient expended over $750,000 of the federal award during its fiscal year and did not obtain an audit of its financial statements or single audit. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Otter Tail County passed funds to local organizations, which the County is familiar with, who have been operating for many years. Funding was provided to subrecipients after detailed listings of proposed expenditures were submitted for review. Effect: The County is not meeting federal regulations pertaining to subrecipient monitoring. Also, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients are administering federal awards in compliance with all applicable federal requirements. Cause: Otter Tail County does not generally provide federal awards to subrecipients and, therefore, did not have policies and procedures in place for subrecipient monitoring activities. Additionally, the County was not aware of the full extent of requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Recommendation: We recommend the County Administrator's office work with departments that pass funds through to subrecipients to identify responsibilities such as completing risk assessments over federal programs, as well as creating and maintaining proper documentation to meet the requirements of federal programs. This would include documenting the monitoring procedures performed (such as on-site visits and review of the subrecipients' audit findings) and any related follow-up on findings, and performing and documenting a risk assessment of subrecipients. We also recommend the County develop and document policies and procedures for monitoring all federal awards passed through to subrecipients. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-005 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Subrecipient Monitoring Program: U.S. Department of the Treasury?s COVID-19 ? Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019), Award No. SLT0016, 2020 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Management and Budget Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ?200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Also, the County must comply with the requirements for pass-through entities as identified in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.332, such as clearly identifying the award to the subrecipient; evaluating the subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award; monitoring the activities of the subrecipient; and verifying the subrecipient is audited, if required. Condition: The following exceptions were noted in the three subrecipients tested: ? The County did not document risk assessment procedures performed over its subrecipients, nor are there documented policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. ? The three subrecipients did not have sufficient monitoring procedures performed over them. ? One subrecipient expended over $750,000 of the federal award during its fiscal year and did not obtain an audit of its financial statements or single audit. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Otter Tail County passed funds to local organizations, which the County is familiar with, who have been operating for many years. Funding was provided to subrecipients after detailed listings of proposed expenditures were submitted for review. Effect: The County is not meeting federal regulations pertaining to subrecipient monitoring. Also, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients are administering federal awards in compliance with all applicable federal requirements. Cause: Otter Tail County does not generally provide federal awards to subrecipients and, therefore, did not have policies and procedures in place for subrecipient monitoring activities. Additionally, the County was not aware of the full extent of requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Recommendation: We recommend the County Administrator's office work with departments that pass funds through to subrecipients to identify responsibilities such as completing risk assessments over federal programs, as well as creating and maintaining proper documentation to meet the requirements of federal programs. This would include documenting the monitoring procedures performed (such as on-site visits and review of the subrecipients' audit findings) and any related follow-up on findings, and performing and documenting a risk assessment of subrecipients. We also recommend the County develop and document policies and procedures for monitoring all federal awards passed through to subrecipients. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number 2020-005 Finding Title: Subrecipient Monitoring Program: COVID-19 ? Coronavirus Relief Fund (CFDA No. 21.019) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Nicole Hansen, County Administrator Corrective Action Planned: The County Administrator?s office will work to create policies and procedures related to the pass-through of federal funds to subrecipients, including documentation of risk assessments and subrecipient monitoring to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2022
The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS and METS, which are used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, there were circumstances where information was not correctly updated or input in MAXIS or METS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 80 MAXIS and METS case files tested: ? Two instances where the income per documentation received was incorrectly input into METS. ? Two instances where the account balance per the bank statement submitted was incorrectly input into MAXIS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS and METS systems, which support the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS or METS increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS or METS systems did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS or METS correctly. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations is properly input or updated in MAXIS or METS, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-006 Prior Year Finding Number: 2019-003 Repeat Finding Since: 2017 Eligibility Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778), Award No. 2005MN5ADM and 2005MN5MAP, 2020 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Condition: The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS and METS, which are used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, there were circumstances where information was not correctly updated or input in MAXIS or METS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 80 MAXIS and METS case files tested: ? Two instances where the income per documentation received was incorrectly input into METS. ? Two instances where the account balance per the bank statement submitted was incorrectly input into MAXIS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS and METS systems, which support the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS or METS increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS or METS systems did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS or METS correctly. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations is properly input or updated in MAXIS or METS, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number 2020-006 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Deborah Sjostrom, Human Services Director and Stephanie Swenson, Financial Assistance Supervisor Corrective Action Planned: The agency will complete case reviews with emphasis on accurate data entry. The agency will also review with staff the importance of ensuring the information entered into the system is accurate and consistent with the information provided by the client on the application and consistent with any verifications provided. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2021
2019-003
The following instances were noted in the sample of reports tested: ? One DHS-3220 report and the LCTS Annual Spending Report tested did not have documentation of review. ? The LCTS Annual Spending report was submitted after the due date. ? The LCTS Annual Spending report used incorrect amounts for expenditures and revenue received. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The type of financial information on the LCTS Annual Spending report changed, but it was filled out by the County using the same methodology as the prior year. The County believed the LCTS Annual Spending report had been submitted by a previous employee who had retired. When the County became aware that this was not the case, they submitted the report. The County does not have a written policy documenting the review process of the LCTS. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Lack of a review and approval process increases the risk that reports will not be submitted as required, timely, or will not be correct. Untimely submission and errors on the annual report can result in the County receiving either more or less federal funding than can be justified based on the actual underlying activity. Revenues on the LCTS Annual Spending Report were overstated by $123,110 and expenditures were overstated by $12,311. Cause: The employee who was responsible for submitting the LCTS Annual Spending Report retired during the year. The County?s controls over preparation of the reports were not sufficient to identify the revenues and expenditures were not properly reported and the controls over the review of the DHS-3220 reports and the LCTS Annual Spending Report were not properly communicated to new staff. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement supervisory review procedures for all reports prior to submission and document evidence of this review. In addition, we recommend the County implement procedures to ensure reports are submitted timely and that the County implement controls that ensure that all eligible expenditures and revenues are reported in a manner that is consistent with DHS guidance. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2020-007 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Reporting Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778), Award No. 2005MN5ADM and 2005MN5MAP, 2020 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. For federal awards received from the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), internal control should also be established and maintained to provide assurance that program reports submitted to DHS are completed in accordance with DHS reporting instructions. As part of the County?s reporting requirements, the County submits the Local Collaborative Time Study (LCTS) Cost Schedule DHS-3220 reports on a quarterly basis and the LCTS Annual Report Spending Report annually. Condition: The following instances were noted in the sample of reports tested: ? One DHS-3220 report and the LCTS Annual Spending Report tested did not have documentation of review. ? The LCTS Annual Spending report was submitted after the due date. ? The LCTS Annual Spending report used incorrect amounts for expenditures and revenue received. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The type of financial information on the LCTS Annual Spending report changed, but it was filled out by the County using the same methodology as the prior year. The County believed the LCTS Annual Spending report had been submitted by a previous employee who had retired. When the County became aware that this was not the case, they submitted the report. The County does not have a written policy documenting the review process of the LCTS. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Lack of a review and approval process increases the risk that reports will not be submitted as required, timely, or will not be correct. Untimely submission and errors on the annual report can result in the County receiving either more or less federal funding than can be justified based on the actual underlying activity. Revenues on the LCTS Annual Spending Report were overstated by $123,110 and expenditures were overstated by $12,311. Cause: The employee who was responsible for submitting the LCTS Annual Spending Report retired during the year. The County?s controls over preparation of the reports were not sufficient to identify the revenues and expenditures were not properly reported and the controls over the review of the DHS-3220 reports and the LCTS Annual Spending Report were not properly communicated to new staff. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement supervisory review procedures for all reports prior to submission and document evidence of this review. In addition, we recommend the County implement procedures to ensure reports are submitted timely and that the County implement controls that ensure that all eligible expenditures and revenues are reported in a manner that is consistent with DHS guidance. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number 2020-007 Finding Title: Reporting Program: Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Deb Sjostrom, Human Services Director and Kendra Huseth, Human Services Finance Manager Corrective Action Planned: The agency will create a policy regarding the review process of the LCTS and a document listing submission dates will be created to ensure timely reporting. Anticipated Completion Date: 9/30/2021
FAC accepted this audit on October 11, 2020 — management decision was due April 11, 2021.
The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS and METS, which are used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, not all documentation was available to support participant eligibility in MAXIS or METS. In other circumstances, information was not updated or input in MAXIS or METS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 50 MAXIS and METS case files tested: ? One instance where there was no documentation to support the income amount entered into MAXIS. ? One instance where the income per documentation received was incorrectly input into MAXIS. ? Three instances where current bank statements were not maintained to support the account balances that were input into MAXIS. ? One instance where the account balance per the bank statement submitted was incorrectly input into MAXIS. ? One instance where the client?s social security number was not input into METS. ? One instance where the client?s citizenship was not verified in METS. ? One instance where monthly income was not input into METS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS and METS systems, which support the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS or METS and verification of eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS or METS systems did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS or METS correctly or that all required information was obtained and/or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists and is properly input or updated in MAXIS or METS and maintained in case files, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding Number: 2019-003 Prior Year Finding Number: 2017-003 Repeat Finding Since: 2017 Eligibility Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778), 1905MN5ADM and 1905MN5MAP, 2019 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Condition: The Minnesota DHS maintains the computer systems, MAXIS and METS, which are used by Otter Tail County to support the eligibility determination process. When performing the case file review for eligibility, not all documentation was available to support participant eligibility in MAXIS or METS. In other circumstances, information was not updated or input in MAXIS or METS. The following instances were noted in the sample of 50 MAXIS and METS case files tested: ? One instance where there was no documentation to support the income amount entered into MAXIS. ? One instance where the income per documentation received was incorrectly input into MAXIS. ? Three instances where current bank statements were not maintained to support the account balances that were input into MAXIS. ? One instance where the account balance per the bank statement submitted was incorrectly input into MAXIS. ? One instance where the client?s social security number was not input into METS. ? One instance where the client?s citizenship was not verified in METS. ? One instance where monthly income was not input into METS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, the County performs any ?intake function? needed for this program, while the state maintains the MAXIS and METS systems, which support the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The lack of updated information in MAXIS or METS and verification of eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS or METS systems did not ensure all required information was input or updated in MAXIS or METS correctly or that all required information was obtained and/or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional review procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists and is properly input or updated in MAXIS or METS and maintained in case files, and that issues are followed up on in a timely manner. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number 2019-003 Prior Year Finding Number: 2017-003 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Human Services Director and Financial Assistance Supervisors Corrective Action Planned: The agency will complete case reviews with emphasis on accurate data entry. The agency will also review with staff the importance of ensuring the information entered into the system is accurate and consistent with the information provided by the client on the application and consistent with any verifications provided. Anticipated Completion Date: Ongoing
2018-001
FAC accepted this audit on September 26, 2019 — management decision was due March 26, 2020.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-003
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-004
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-005
FAC accepted this audit on September 27, 2018 — management decision was due March 27, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴FAC accepted this audit on September 28, 2017 — management decision was due March 28, 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 Minnesota →
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.
