Pennington County

Criteria: The Uniform Guidance states that an auditee must submit a data collection form and audit reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor’s report or 9 months after the end of the audit report. Condition: Pennington County did not submit the data collection form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the required time frame. Context: The County was in violation of the reporting requirements when their audit was not completed until 11 months after the end of the fiscal year. Effect: This was an isolated instance of late reporting that is not expected to reoccur. Cause: Delays in completeness of information resulted in late reporting. Recommendation: The annual County audit should be completed within 9 months of the fiscal year end to allow for timely submission of the data collection form and reporting package. County’s Response: The County Auditor/Treasurer will monitor the progress of the annual audit in the future so that the annual audit will be completed on a timely basis as described in our Corrective Action Plan.

Criteria: The Uniform Guidance states that an auditee must submit a data collection form and audit reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor’s report or nine months after the end of the audit period. Condition: Pennington County did not submit the data collection form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the required time frame. Context: Pennington County was in violation of the reporting requirements when their audit was not completed until after 11 months after the end of the fiscal year. Effect: This was a first time isolated instance of later reporting that is not expected to reoccur. Cause: Required information was not provided to the auditor in a timely manner which delayed the completion of the audit report. Recommendation: The annual county audit should be completed within nine months of the fiscal year end to allow for timely submission of the data collection form and reporting package. Pennington County Response: The County Auditor/Treasurer will monitor the progress of the annual audit in the future so that the annual audit will be completed on a timely basis as described in the corrective action plan.

Finding Number: 2021-002 Finding Title: Reporting Requirements Criteria: The Uniform Guidance states that an auditee must submit a data collection form and audit reporting package to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor?s report or nine months after the end of the audit period. Condition: Pennington County did not submit the data collection form to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse within the required time frame. Context: Pennington County was in violation of the reporting requirements when their audit was not completed until after 11 months after the end of the fiscal year. Effect: This instance of later reporting is not expected to reoccur. 0 Cause: Complications during the course of the audit imposed by an eternal oversight agency delayed the auditors in the completion of the auditor report. Recommendation: The annual County audit should be completed within nine months of the fiscal year end to allow for timely submission of the data collection form and reporting package. Pennington County?s Response: The late audit report was beyond the control of the County. The County Auditor/Treasurer will monitor the progress of the annual audit in the future so that the annual audit will be completed on a timely basis as described in our Corrective Action Plan.

Finding Number: 2020-004 Finding Title: 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 and evaluating the subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: The County did not document risk assessment procedures performed over its subrecipients. Award information, including the CFDA number, was not provided to subrecipients, and there were no signed subrecipient agreements in place. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Context: The County passed funds to local governments who have been operating for many years and with whom the County is familiar with. The County also passed funds to non-profit organizations in order to provide assistance for their continuing operations. For all subrecipients, the County reviewed detailed listings of expenditures, along with supporting documentation, prior to the funds being reported to Minnesota Management and Budget. Effect: The County is not meeting all federal regulations pertaining to subrecipient monitoring. Cause: The County was not aware of the full extent of requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Recommendation: We recommend the County document its rationale of who is a subrecipient, including guidance followed at the time of determination, and document risk assessments completed for those identified as subrecipients in order to determine further monitoring procedures that should be performed. We further recommend that signed subrecipient agreements be put in place that provides subrecipients with all information required under the Uniform Guidance. County?s Response: The County is now aware of the issue and is working on a formal policy to be approved by the County Board and implemented to meet the requirements of subrecipient monitoring.

Finding Number: 2019-004 Prior Year Audit Finding Number: 2017-001 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medicaid Cluster (CFDA No. 93.778), Award No. 05-1605MN5ADM, 2017 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Human Services Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.303 states 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. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the computer system, METS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was available or updated to support participant eligibility. In 1 of the 40 case files reviewed, annual review/application information to support eligibility re-determination was not in the case file. Per METS, a renewal notice was generated and noted as signed/received, but not scanned in to support that statement. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but benefits to participants in this program are paid by the State of Minnesota. Context: The State of Minnesota contracts with the County Human Services Department to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with social services clients to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, 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 2017 AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The potential improper entering of case information into METS and lack of verification or follow-up of eligibility determining factors increase the risk that a program participant will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: The program personnel performing annual reviews and entering case information into METS did not follow through with the scanning process to input the signed renewal into the system to support the renewal. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional procedures, including reviews, to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determination exists and is properly input into MAXIS and METS. County?s Response: A Corrective Action Plan has been implemented and is included in this report.

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION