EIN: 416005875
UEI: S5C3Q2AJXM83
Data as of August 24, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on April 9, 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 October 9, 2026 (46 days from today).
What is a management decision? →The County did not obtain itemized documentation for five out of 44 disbursements tested. Questioned Costs: $181,377; known questioned costs were determined based on individual expenditures with exceptions identified. Context: The County treated one vendor as a subrecipient and approved a budget for this vendor by type of expenditure. The County monitored the vendor's actual expenditures against approved budgeted expenditures. Total expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is $50,901,938 for this program. The sample tested included approximately $2,570,500. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Additionally, four individually important items were selected for testing. Effect: The County has insufficient documentation to demonstrate expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Cause: The County felt its procedures over monitoring actual expenditures to budgeted expenditures were sufficient in lieu of reviewing itemized supporting documentation. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain supporting documentation related to expenditures, including payroll reports and supporting receipts for purchases, sufficient to determine expenditures were for allowable activities. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2024-002 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2024 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: Direct, Not Provided Pass-Through Agency: Direct and City of Saint Paul 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 §§ 200.403(a) and 200.403(g) require costs to be necessary and reasonable, and be adequately documented. Condition: The County did not obtain itemized documentation for five out of 44 disbursements tested. Questioned Costs: $181,377; known questioned costs were determined based on individual expenditures with exceptions identified. Context: The County treated one vendor as a subrecipient and approved a budget for this vendor by type of expenditure. The County monitored the vendor's actual expenditures against approved budgeted expenditures. Total expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is $50,901,938 for this program. The sample tested included approximately $2,570,500. The sample size was based on guidance from Chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Additionally, four individually important items were selected for testing. Effect: The County has insufficient documentation to demonstrate expenditures were for allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Cause: The County felt its procedures over monitoring actual expenditures to budgeted expenditures were sufficient in lieu of reviewing itemized supporting documentation. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain supporting documentation related to expenditures, including payroll reports and supporting receipts for purchases, sufficient to determine expenditures were for allowable activities. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Finding Number: 2024-002 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: 21.027 COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Daniel Rahkola, Division Director Finance Corrective Action Planned: The County will review program-related costs to ensure compliance with applicable grant requirements and to confirm that all costs are allowable, allocable, and properly supported. Supporting documentation must sufficiently demonstrate the allowability of each cost. This review will include the following: • Submitted payroll reports that detail individual hours worked, descriptions of work performed, and a clear link between the work performed and allowable grant program activities. • General ledger reports that support each cost and clearly document the relationship between the expenditure and allowable grant program expenses. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026
The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Ramsey County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was available, updated, or input correctly to support participant eligibility. The following exceptions were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: • one case file where the relationship between the minor child and the parent or other caretaker relative was not documented, • one case file where the social security number of one member of the assistance unit was not documented, and • one case file where the income in MAXIS did not agree with the supporting documentation on file. In a sample of 11 cases with non-cooperation in establishing paternity tested, an exception was noted in one case file where sanctions were not imposed for four months when they should have been based on supporting documentation on file. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but the State of Minnesota pays benefits to participants in this program. Context: The State of Minnesota and Ramsey County split the eligibility determination process. Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, Ramsey County performs the “intake function” needed for this program, while the State maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process. Participants receive benefit payments from the State. The total population of eligible participants was 4,025. Child support non-cooperation is determined by the County, and the Providing Resources to Improve Support in Minnesota (PRISM) system maintains the information and recipient status. When a Child Support Officer at the County updates PRISM to show non-cooperation, it interfaces with MAXIS. From this interface, MAXIS receives a Worker’s Daily Report message which notifies the entity of child support non-cooperation. The County is responsible for updating the recipient’s record in MAXIS, including entering child support sanctions, or closing a case on the seventh occurrence of noncompliance. The total population of cases of non-cooperation at the County was 370. Sample sizes were 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 documenting verification of key eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. In addition, benefit overpayments could be paid when child support non-cooperation is not properly processed for a benefit month. Cause: Program personnel entering case data into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input correctly, supported, and obtained or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists, information is properly input or updated in MAXIS, and child support non-cooperation case files benefits are being reduced as necessary in MAXIS. In addition, the County should consider providing further training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2024-003 Eligibility and Child Support Non-Cooperation Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2024 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Award Number and Year: 2401MNTANF; 2024 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 award. Title 42 United States Code § 602(a)(1)(B)(iii) requires each state to create a written document that shall set forth the objective criteria for the delivery of benefits and the determination of eligibility. The Minnesota Department of Human Services’ State Plan for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Minn. Stat. § 256J.10 [see now Minn. Stat. § 142G.10, subd. 1] establish the general eligibility requirements for TANF benefits. Title 45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 264.30 states: “What procedures exist to ensure cooperation with the child support enforcement requirements? (a)(1) The State agency must refer all appropriate individuals in the family of a child, for whom paternity has not been established or for whom a child support order needs to be established, modified, or enforced, to the child support enforcement agency (i.e., the IV-D agency). (2) Referred individuals must cooperate in establishing paternity and in establishing, modifying, or enforcing a support order with respect to the child. (b) If the IV-D agency determines that an individual is not cooperating, and the individual does not qualify for a good cause or other exception established by the State agency responsible for making good cause determinations in accordance with section 454(29) of the Act or for a good cause domestic violence waiver granted in accordance with § 260.52 of this chapter, then the IV-D agency must notify the IV-A agency promptly. (c) The IV-A agency must then take appropriate action by: (1) Deducting from the assistance that would otherwise be provided to the family of the individual an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the amount of such assistance; or (2) Denying the family any assistance under the program.” Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Ramsey County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was available, updated, or input correctly to support participant eligibility. The following exceptions were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: • one case file where the relationship between the minor child and the parent or other caretaker relative was not documented, • one case file where the social security number of one member of the assistance unit was not documented, and • one case file where the income in MAXIS did not agree with the supporting documentation on file. In a sample of 11 cases with non-cooperation in establishing paternity tested, an exception was noted in one case file where sanctions were not imposed for four months when they should have been based on supporting documentation on file. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but the State of Minnesota pays benefits to participants in this program. Context: The State of Minnesota and Ramsey County split the eligibility determination process. Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, Ramsey County performs the “intake function” needed for this program, while the State maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process. Participants receive benefit payments from the State. The total population of eligible participants was 4,025. Child support non-cooperation is determined by the County, and the Providing Resources to Improve Support in Minnesota (PRISM) system maintains the information and recipient status. When a Child Support Officer at the County updates PRISM to show non-cooperation, it interfaces with MAXIS. From this interface, MAXIS receives a Worker’s Daily Report message which notifies the entity of child support non-cooperation. The County is responsible for updating the recipient’s record in MAXIS, including entering child support sanctions, or closing a case on the seventh occurrence of noncompliance. The total population of cases of non-cooperation at the County was 370. Sample sizes were 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 documenting verification of key eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. In addition, benefit overpayments could be paid when child support non-cooperation is not properly processed for a benefit month. Cause: Program personnel entering case data into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input correctly, supported, and obtained or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists, information is properly input or updated in MAXIS, and child support non-cooperation case files benefits are being reduced as necessary in MAXIS. In addition, the County should consider providing further training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Finding Number: 2024-003 Finding Title: Eligibility and Child Support Non-Cooperation Program: 93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Janelle White – Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Melody Santana-Marty – Controller Community Services and Supports Corrective Action Planned: Internal quality control review checklists, specific to each program area, will be reviewed and updated, and additional controls will be developed to ensure that required documentation is obtained and maintained. Department-wide communication to staff regarding the importance of complete and adequate supporting documentation in the case file prior to case approval has been implemented and will continue on an ongoing basis. This communication will include guidance on how to determine whether supporting documentation is sufficient, along with examples of acceptable documentation. At a minimum, required documentation will include: • Documentation verifying client eligibility for the key eligibility-determining factors. • Evidence of the verification process recorded in MAXIS. • Documentation confirming that child support files have been reviewed and updated for non-cooperation, as applicable. Supervisors will conduct periodic reviews of case files to ensure that all required documentation is on file. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2026
The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Ramsey County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was available, updated, or input correctly to support participant eligibility. The following exceptions were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: • two case files where the verification of citizenship was not documented, • one case file where the application was not documented, • two case files where the verification of income was not documented or documentation did not agree with MAXIS, and • nine case files where the verification of assets was not documented or documentation did not agree with MAXIS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but the State of Minnesota pays benefits to participants in this program. Context: The State of Minnesota and Ramsey County split the eligibility determination process. Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, Ramsey County performs the “intake function” needed for this program, while the State maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process. Participants receive benefit payments from the State. The total population of eligible participants was 32,937. 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 documenting verification of key eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: Program personnel entering case data into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input correctly, supported, and obtained or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists and information is properly input or updated in MAXIS. In addition, the County should consider providing further training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2024-004 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Year of Finding Origination: 2024 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Award Number and Year: 2405MN5ADM; 2024 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 award. Title 42 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations §§ 435.911 and 435.945 require the state Medicaid agency to determine and verify eligibility of enrollees in Medicaid. The Minnesota Department of Human Services provides the Minnesota Health Care Programs Eligibility Policy Manual. The manual contains the Minnesota Department of Human Services eligibility policies for the Minnesota Health Care Programs, including the eligibility requirements of Medical Assistance. Specific eligibility requirements are included for participants’ citizenship verification, income limits, applications, and asset verification. Minnesota Statutes, Section 256B.05, requires county agencies to administer Medical Assistance. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by Ramsey County to support the eligibility determination process. In the case files reviewed for eligibility, not all documentation was available, updated, or input correctly to support participant eligibility. The following exceptions were noted in the sample of 40 MAXIS case files tested: • two case files where the verification of citizenship was not documented, • one case file where the application was not documented, • two case files where the verification of income was not documented or documentation did not agree with MAXIS, and • nine case files where the verification of assets was not documented or documentation did not agree with MAXIS. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. The County administers the program, but the State of Minnesota pays benefits to participants in this program. Context: The State of Minnesota and Ramsey County split the eligibility determination process. Pursuant to Minnesota statutes, Ramsey County performs the “intake function” needed for this program, while the State maintains the MAXIS system, which supports the eligibility determination process. Participants receive benefit payments from the State. The total population of eligible participants was 32,937. 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 documenting verification of key eligibility-determining factors increases the risk that program participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Cause: Program personnel entering case data into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was input correctly, supported, and obtained or retained. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement additional procedures to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility determinations exists and information is properly input or updated in MAXIS. In addition, the County should consider providing further training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur.
Finding Number: 2024-004 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Janelle White – Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Melody Santana-Marty – Controller Community Services and Supports Corrective Action Planned: Internal quality controls specific to the Medicaid program, will be reviewed and updated. Department-wide communication to staff regarding the importance of complete and adequate supporting documentation in the case file prior to case approval has been implemented and will continue on an ongoing basis. This communication will include guidance on how to determine whether documentation is sufficient, along with examples of acceptable support. At a minimum, required documentation will include: • Documentation verifying citizenship. • Examples of properly completed applications. • Reconciliation of the income verification in MAXIS and the documentation in the case file. • Reconciliation of the asset verification in MAXIS and the documentation in the case file. The Quality Assurance review process and Corrective Action Plan have been documented and communicated to provide guidance for new staff, serve as refresher training for existing staff, and ensure that appropriate actions are consistently followed. This documentation will be reviewed and revised as necessary to maintain compliance and consistency across the department. Supervisory review has been implemented for new hires. When issues are identified with current staff, enhanced review strategies and procedures will be applied to ensure required documentation is properly reviewed prior to case approval. Supervisors will conduct periodic reviews of case files to ensure that all required documentation is on file. If errors are identified and overpayments occur, the Department will follow established protocols of the Minnesota Department of Human Services regarding the identification, reporting, and recovery of overpayments. Anticipated Completion Date: 06/10/2026
FAC accepted this audit on May 27, 2025 — management decision was due November 27, 2025.
In a sample of 16 participant’s eligibility documentation tested, the following exceptions were detected: • For one participant, the address indicated on the ERA Request Form did not agree to the address included in the lease agreement. • Three participants did not have documentation to support that they were at risk of experiencing homelessness. • Three participants did not have documentation to support a reasonable basis for determining income. • Two participants did not have documentation to support a redetermination of income. • Three participants had instances where one-time payments, such as security deposits and application fees, were duplicated. • Thirteen participants did not have documentation originating from the hotel or shelter supporting payment amount and that incidental expenses were not included. • Eight participants had inconsistencies in the payment data provided between the participant name noted as the payee and the participant name noted as being applicable to in the transaction description. Questioned Costs: $140,822. Questioned costs are calculated based on payments to sampled participants. The amounts relating to costs that were not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit are $138,844, and amounts relating to duplicate payments are $1,978. These questioned costs were provided to a subrecipient that made the direct payments on behalf of participants. Context: The County had 80 total participants for the COVID-19 – Emergency Rental Assistance Program in 2023. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with requirements of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the County’s Program Guide for Tenant Application. Cause: The County informed us that documentation could not be located, and that a number of staff who were involved in the program are no longer a part of the department. In addition, the County informed us that it had a contract in place with a consultant to assist the County in housing participants. However, no documentation was provided supporting detailed hotel expenses. Lastly, the County informed us that the inconsistencies in the payment data appears to have been clerical mistakes. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation supporting participant eligibility in a location accessible to County staff. In addition, we recommend the County obtain documentation originating from hotels or shelters in sufficient detail as to provide support for costs charged to the grant and verify incidental expenses are not included. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-004 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-006 Year of Finding Origination: 2022 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.023 COVID-19 – Emergency Rental Assistance Program Pass-Through Agency: N/A - 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. The U.S. Department of the Treasury Frequently Asked Questions for Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA), revised July 27, 2022, requires grantees to obtain a current lease that identifies the unit where the applicant resides, to have support that an applicant is at risk of experiencing homelessness with a written attestation from the applicant or evidence of risk as determined by the grantee, have a reasonable basis for determining and redetermining income, and have documentation of the cost of any hotel or motel charged to the grant and the cost of the hotel or motel stay not include expenses incidental to the charge for the room. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations § 200.403(g) requires costs to be adequately documented. In addition, the County’s Federal Emergency Program Guide for Tenant Application requires the County to obtain a written attestation if the Household has no qualifying income, or does not have documentation of all current income, and requires the County to use the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) record when eligibility is based on homelessness. Condition: In a sample of 16 participant’s eligibility documentation tested, the following exceptions were detected: • For one participant, the address indicated on the ERA Request Form did not agree to the address included in the lease agreement. • Three participants did not have documentation to support that they were at risk of experiencing homelessness. • Three participants did not have documentation to support a reasonable basis for determining income. • Two participants did not have documentation to support a redetermination of income. • Three participants had instances where one-time payments, such as security deposits and application fees, were duplicated. • Thirteen participants did not have documentation originating from the hotel or shelter supporting payment amount and that incidental expenses were not included. • Eight participants had inconsistencies in the payment data provided between the participant name noted as the payee and the participant name noted as being applicable to in the transaction description. Questioned Costs: $140,822. Questioned costs are calculated based on payments to sampled participants. The amounts relating to costs that were not supported by adequate documentation at the time of the audit are $138,844, and amounts relating to duplicate payments are $1,978. These questioned costs were provided to a subrecipient that made the direct payments on behalf of participants. Context: The County had 80 total participants for the COVID-19 – Emergency Rental Assistance Program in 2023. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with requirements of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the County’s Program Guide for Tenant Application. Cause: The County informed us that documentation could not be located, and that a number of staff who were involved in the program are no longer a part of the department. In addition, the County informed us that it had a contract in place with a consultant to assist the County in housing participants. However, no documentation was provided supporting detailed hotel expenses. Lastly, the County informed us that the inconsistencies in the payment data appears to have been clerical mistakes. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation supporting participant eligibility in a location accessible to County staff. In addition, we recommend the County obtain documentation originating from hotels or shelters in sufficient detail as to provide support for costs charged to the grant and verify incidental expenses are not included. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2023-004 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: 21.023 COVID-19 – Emergency Rental Assistance Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Daniel Rahkola, Division Director Finance Corrective Action Planned: Staff will be retrained on the procedures to ensure compliance with the needed standards. Anticipated Completion Date: June 30, 2025
2022-006
In the sample of two quarterly PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly reports tested, errors were noted in both reports resulting from the County improperly including accruals in the reporting and not including all accounts, including those relating to program income. In addition, Ramsey County has not submitted subaward information in the FSRS as required by the FFATA for the Community Development Block Grant. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly report is not used to claim reimbursement of federal funds. A subaward is any award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to administer part of a federal award received by the pass-through entity. The FFATA issue was noted during the audit of the Community Development Block Grant; however, it impacts federal programs County-wide. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Ramsey County is not in compliance with the requirements for PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly or FFATA reporting. Cause: The County experienced staff turnover. In addition, the County missed HUD notifications that FFATA needed to be implemented. Recommendation: We recommend Ramsey County implement procedures to complete reports as required by HUD and ensure the correct accounting basis is used and all accounts are being included. We recommend Ramsey County implement procedures to complete reports required by FFATA. In addition, we recommend Ramsey County work with HUD on how best to correct PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly reporting. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-005 Reporting – PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly and Federal Funding and Accountability and Transparency Act 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. Housing and Urban Development Program: 14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 COVID-19 – Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Pass-Through Agency: N/A - 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. The PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly report is a required quarterly report. The basis of accounting described in the directions is a cash basis. Also, the directions list accounts to be included in the reports, including program income accounts. Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. No. 109-282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, that are codified in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 170, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Condition: In the sample of two quarterly PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly reports tested, errors were noted in both reports resulting from the County improperly including accruals in the reporting and not including all accounts, including those relating to program income. In addition, Ramsey County has not submitted subaward information in the FSRS as required by the FFATA for the Community Development Block Grant. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly report is not used to claim reimbursement of federal funds. A subaward is any award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to administer part of a federal award received by the pass-through entity. The FFATA issue was noted during the audit of the Community Development Block Grant; however, it impacts federal programs County-wide. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Ramsey County is not in compliance with the requirements for PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly or FFATA reporting. Cause: The County experienced staff turnover. In addition, the County missed HUD notifications that FFATA needed to be implemented. Recommendation: We recommend Ramsey County implement procedures to complete reports as required by HUD and ensure the correct accounting basis is used and all accounts are being included. We recommend Ramsey County implement procedures to complete reports required by FFATA. In addition, we recommend Ramsey County work with HUD on how best to correct PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly reporting. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2023-005 Finding Title: Reporting – PR29 – CDBG Cash on Hand Quarterly and Federal Funding and Accountability and Transparency Act Program: 14.218 Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 COVID-19 – Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Max Holdhusen, Deputy Director of Community and Economic Development Corrective Action Planned: 1) Ramsey County will implement internal procedures to complete PR29 quarterly reports as required by HUD and ensure the correct accounting basis and accounts are being utilized. 2) Ramsey County will implement procedures to complete reports on FSRS required by FFATA. 3) Ramsey County will develop/update our agency’s written grants administration policies and procedures to align with current practices and applicable rules. 4) Ramsey County will conduct regular trainings of policies and procedures for staff involved with CDBG grants administration. Anticipated Completion Date: July 15, 2025
The DHS-2556 second quarter report overstated payroll expense for individuals required to participate in the social services time study by $552,225 and understated payroll expense for individuals who do not participate in the social services time study. Questioned Costs: None. Context: DHS relies on accurate identification and reporting of program costs to ensure grant funds paid to the County are allowable and provide detailed information necessary for maintaining proper oversight over federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Errors in the reporting of costs on the quarterly reports can impair the ability of DHS to provide required oversight over federal programs and result in the County receiving either more or less federal funds than justified based on the actual underlying activity. Cause: The error was due to an incorrect formula in a supporting workbook. Recommendation: We recommend Ramsey County implement controls to ensure accurate reporting to DHS in accordance with federal program guidance and DHS instructions. We also recommend reports submitted incorrectly are corrected and resubmitted. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-006 Reporting – DHS Social Service Fund (DHS-2556) 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 Health and Human Services Program: 93.658 Foster Care – Title IV-E Award Number and Year: 2301MNFOST, 2023 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 award. Administrative program costs for Foster Care are submitted to the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) through the DHS Social Service Fund (DHS-2556) report on a quarterly basis. DHS provides reporting instructions, including information regarding eligible and ineligible costs. Condition: The DHS-2556 second quarter report overstated payroll expense for individuals required to participate in the social services time study by $552,225 and understated payroll expense for individuals who do not participate in the social services time study. Questioned Costs: None. Context: DHS relies on accurate identification and reporting of program costs to ensure grant funds paid to the County are allowable and provide detailed information necessary for maintaining proper oversight over federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Errors in the reporting of costs on the quarterly reports can impair the ability of DHS to provide required oversight over federal programs and result in the County receiving either more or less federal funds than justified based on the actual underlying activity. Cause: The error was due to an incorrect formula in a supporting workbook. Recommendation: We recommend Ramsey County implement controls to ensure accurate reporting to DHS in accordance with federal program guidance and DHS instructions. We also recommend reports submitted incorrectly are corrected and resubmitted. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2023-006 Finding Title: Reporting – DHS Social Service Fund (DHS-2556) Program: 93.658 Foster Care – Title IV-E Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Janelle White – Controller for Ramsey County’s Health & Wellness Service Team Enrique Rivera – Fiscal Services Manager for Ramsey County’s Health & Wellness Service Team Corrective Action Planned: Starting in the third quarter of 2024, Ramsey County instituted an additional verification step in the review process to support the determination of accurate cost pool categorization of reimbursable costs for the Random Moment Time Study Reports cost reports. The additional step will be to confirm that on the Summary Tab of the Quarterly Payroll file, the cost codes lines are in sequential order and that the corresponding expense totals match the cost code. The Senior Accountant will do the first review of this step, and the Fiscal Manager will complete the second review. The error on the 2nd quarter 2023 report was remedied and resubmitted in the 2nd quarter of 2024. Anticipated Completion Date: July of 2024 when the 2nd quarter DHS-2556 and DHS 2550 are due to be complete and finalized.
FAC accepted this audit on July 16, 2023 — management decision was due January 16, 2024.
The County did not obtain itemized documentation from its subrecipients for six out of 40 disbursements tested. The amount of disbursements that did not have supporting documentation totaled $507,553. Itemized documentation would include reports derived from payroll systems or subrecipient general ledgers and original receipts. Questioned Costs: Could not be determined. Context: The County expended a total of $5,500,646 of Emergency Solutions Grant Program funds in 2022. Of this amount, $5,466,366 was passed through to subrecipients of the County. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: By not obtaining itemized documentation, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients were expending funds on allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. In addition, the County is not meeting the requirements outlined in its agreement with the City of Saint Paul. Cause: The County considered its subrecipient monitoring procedures sufficient in lieu of obtaining itemized documentation. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain itemized documentation related to expenditures, including payroll or general ledger reports and itemized receipts, as applicable, for subrecipient reimbursement requests. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-004 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Program: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program Award Number and Year: E-20-MW-27-0007, E-20-MC-27-0007, 2020; E-21-MC-27-0007, 2021 Pass-Through Agency: City of Saint Paul, Minnesota 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. In addition, per the Joint Powers Agreement between the County and the City of Saint Paul, the County is to submit supporting evidence for each Draw Request prepared by the County for reimbursement. Condition: The County did not obtain itemized documentation from its subrecipients for six out of 40 disbursements tested. The amount of disbursements that did not have supporting documentation totaled $507,553. Itemized documentation would include reports derived from payroll systems or subrecipient general ledgers and original receipts. Questioned Costs: Could not be determined. Context: The County expended a total of $5,500,646 of Emergency Solutions Grant Program funds in 2022. Of this amount, $5,466,366 was passed through to subrecipients of the County. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: By not obtaining itemized documentation, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients were expending funds on allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. In addition, the County is not meeting the requirements outlined in its agreement with the City of Saint Paul. Cause: The County considered its subrecipient monitoring procedures sufficient in lieu of obtaining itemized documentation. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain itemized documentation related to expenditures, including payroll or general ledger reports and itemized receipts, as applicable, for subrecipient reimbursement requests. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2022-004 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: 14.231 Emergency Solutions Grant Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: George Hardgrove, EGCI Service Team Controller Corrective Action Planned: Ramsey County had exceptions for 6 of 40 transactions tested. The exceptions noted were for a lack of receipt copies and not having the proper payroll reports attached. We agree with the lack of receipt copies. For payroll, we felt the payroll reports provided were adequate to determine the appropriate labor cost. The receipt issue came to about 2.5% of the $5.5M that was expended under this award in 2022 while the payroll documentation was about 7% of this amount. Nonetheless, we will create and use a check list to ensure we have the proper receipt copies and payroll reports for each subrecipient invoice we approve. We will also work on clarifying the required payroll reports with our grantors. Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2023.
The following exceptions were detected in the audit of COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program: ? In the sample of 15 disbursements tested, five consisted of advance payments to the County?s subrecipients where itemized documentation was not subsequently obtained, and ? In the sample of three journal entries tested, all three included duplicate expenditures. Questioned Costs: $254,296 Context: The County was allocated over $15 million in ERA1 and ERA2 funds between 2021 and 2022, expending $6,470,692 in 2022. Of this amount, $5,741,917 was passed through to subrecipients in 2022. The County completed monitoring procedures over its subrecipients at the beginning of 2022, reviewed spending of the subrecipients against budgets established at the beginning of the program, and viewed data entered by its subrecipients into online portals noting rent and utility assistance provided. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: By not obtaining itemized documentation, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients were expending funds on allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Excess funding was to be returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for reallocation. Cause: The County considered its subrecipient monitoring procedures and monitoring of spending and online portals sufficient in lieu of obtaining itemized documentation. The County created journal entries to move funding between the ERA1 and ERA2 Programs to close and ?clean up? the ERA1 Program. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain supporting documentation related to advances, including payroll and general ledger reports, and itemized receipts for purchases prior to disbursing subsequent advances. In addition, we recommend the County implement procedures to ensure that only allowable program expenditures are reimbursed, taking special care with journal entries to ensure expenditures are not duplicated. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-005 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.023 COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program 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. Per the County?s subrecipient agreements, ?each jurisdiction?s program allocation may only be used to provide Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) [or Financial Assistance] to eligible households within the geographical boundaries of that jurisdiction.? In addition, Part 3 of the OMB Compliance Supplement states that improper payments include any duplicate payment. Condition: The following exceptions were detected in the audit of COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program: ? In the sample of 15 disbursements tested, five consisted of advance payments to the County?s subrecipients where itemized documentation was not subsequently obtained, and ? In the sample of three journal entries tested, all three included duplicate expenditures. Questioned Costs: $254,296 Context: The County was allocated over $15 million in ERA1 and ERA2 funds between 2021 and 2022, expending $6,470,692 in 2022. Of this amount, $5,741,917 was passed through to subrecipients in 2022. The County completed monitoring procedures over its subrecipients at the beginning of 2022, reviewed spending of the subrecipients against budgets established at the beginning of the program, and viewed data entered by its subrecipients into online portals noting rent and utility assistance provided. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: By not obtaining itemized documentation, the County cannot be assured that its subrecipients were expending funds on allowable activities and met the requirements of allowable costs. Excess funding was to be returned to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for reallocation. Cause: The County considered its subrecipient monitoring procedures and monitoring of spending and online portals sufficient in lieu of obtaining itemized documentation. The County created journal entries to move funding between the ERA1 and ERA2 Programs to close and ?clean up? the ERA1 Program. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain supporting documentation related to advances, including payroll and general ledger reports, and itemized receipts for purchases prior to disbursing subsequent advances. In addition, we recommend the County implement procedures to ensure that only allowable program expenditures are reimbursed, taking special care with journal entries to ensure expenditures are not duplicated. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2022-005 Finding Title: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: 21.023 COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Tara Bach, Director Operational Support Services Corrective Action Planned: ? The County will request supporting documentation, including general ledger report and/or bank statements and client list, to verify that advance payment have been spent before dispersing additional advance payments to subrecipient. ? Make sure extra time is given when moving expenses between grants to ensure that nothing gets moved twice. Anticipated Completion Date: The process used for this change has been implemented effective June 15, 2023.
In a sample of 19 participant?s eligibility documentation tested, the following exceptions were detected: ? One payment to a participant?s landlord exceeded the amount in the agreement; ? Three participants did not have documentation to support household income; and ? All participants did not have documentation originating from the hotel or shelter supporting the payment amount on behalf of the participant, including that incidental expenses were not included; or the hotel invoice did not agree to the actual payment amount. Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000 Context: The County informed us that its procedures are to take attendance daily for participants housed at hotels or shelters, and reconcile it to monthly attendance confirmations provided by the hotels or shelters. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with requirements determined by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, as well as the County is not following procedures as outlined in its Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program Guide for Tenant Application. Cause: For the damage deposit discrepancy noted, the County believes that the incorrect damage deposit amount was noted in the lease by the landlord in error. The County informed us that it allowed verbal attestation in some cases for income verifications. Lastly, the County was unable to provide documentation of its reconciliation procedures over participant attendance at hotels or shelters. Recommendation: We recommend the County ensure its policies and procedures are being followed. In addition, we recommend the County review guidance provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to ensure it is meeting all applicable compliance requirements. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-006 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.023 COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program 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. Per the County's Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program Guide for Tenant Application, the County is to obtain a written attestation if the participant household has no qualifying income or does not have documentation of all current income. In addition, per the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, revised July 27, 2022, a grantee may rely on a written attestation without further documentation of household income under three approaches, self-attestation being one of these approaches; and the cost of a hotel or motel room may be covered using Emergency Rental Assistance provided that documentation of the hotel or motel stay is provided. The cost of the hotel or motel stay would not include expenses incidental to the charge for the room. Condition: In a sample of 19 participant?s eligibility documentation tested, the following exceptions were detected: ? One payment to a participant?s landlord exceeded the amount in the agreement; ? Three participants did not have documentation to support household income; and ? All participants did not have documentation originating from the hotel or shelter supporting the payment amount on behalf of the participant, including that incidental expenses were not included; or the hotel invoice did not agree to the actual payment amount. Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000 Context: The County informed us that its procedures are to take attendance daily for participants housed at hotels or shelters, and reconcile it to monthly attendance confirmations provided by the hotels or shelters. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County is not in compliance with requirements determined by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, as well as the County is not following procedures as outlined in its Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program Guide for Tenant Application. Cause: For the damage deposit discrepancy noted, the County believes that the incorrect damage deposit amount was noted in the lease by the landlord in error. The County informed us that it allowed verbal attestation in some cases for income verifications. Lastly, the County was unable to provide documentation of its reconciliation procedures over participant attendance at hotels or shelters. Recommendation: We recommend the County ensure its policies and procedures are being followed. In addition, we recommend the County review guidance provided by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to ensure it is meeting all applicable compliance requirements. View of Responsible Official: Acknowledge
Finding Number: 2022-006 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: 21.023 COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Program Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Kim Cleminson, Deputy Director, Housing Stability Department Corrective Action Planned: In response to the finding, Ramsey County Housing Department (HSD) will implement the following: 1. For the ERA-based Highway to Housing program that ended May 30, 2023 a. Records from the hotels, outlining the costs were located and will be migrated to a centralized/ Sharepoint site; and b. Additionally, HSD will source the income verification for the three participants and save copies to the centralized/ Sharepoint site 2. For the new ERA-based Housing Court program, which is a tenant rental assistance program, no hotels stays will be covered- only outstanding rent, fees, and utilities as outlined by the landlord. For this program, the following records are obtained for each client and maintained on the centralized SharePoint site: a. Application to the programming outlining program eligibility and amount owed with signed self-attestation, third party verification, and signed attestation from an authorized representative; and b. Copy of the lease, ledger, or notice of outstanding rent and/or utility arrears. Anticipated Completion Date: 1. Migration of records to be complete by July 31, 2023 2. Housing Court program launched on June 16, 2023. All the records supporting newly approved ERA expenditures are saved on Sharepoint.
FAC accepted this audit on August 3, 2022 — management decision was due February 3, 2023.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were noted in our sample of 40 case files tested: ? six case files had information in MAXIS that did not agree to supporting documentation in the case file, and ? three case files did not have documentation of verification of citizenship. In addition, the County does not have a formalized supervisory case file review process in place. 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?s Health and Wellness Department to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to 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 proper documentation and follow-up of issues as well as not updating information in MAXIS increases the risk that clients will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: Program personnel entering case information into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was obtained, maintained in the case files, and updated in MAXIS. The County informed us that due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Department include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or some method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-004 Eligibility Prior Year Finding Number: 2020-003 Repeat Finding Since: 2016 Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program: 93.778 Medical Assistance Program Award Number and Year: 2105MN5ADM and 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 award. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were noted in our sample of 40 case files tested: ? six case files had information in MAXIS that did not agree to supporting documentation in the case file, and ? three case files did not have documentation of verification of citizenship. In addition, the County does not have a formalized supervisory case file review process in place. 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?s Health and Wellness Department to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota Department of Human Services maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to 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 proper documentation and follow-up of issues as well as not updating information in MAXIS increases the risk that clients will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: Program personnel entering case information into MAXIS did not ensure all required information was obtained, maintained in the case files, and updated in MAXIS. The County informed us that due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Department include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or some method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2021-004 Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (ALN 93.778) Prior Year Finding Number: 2020-003 Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Janelle White ? Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Francis Odhiambo ? Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Corrective Action Planned: Internal quality control review checklists, specific to each Program area have been developed. With COVID-19, the planned full rollout has been pushed back to the end of 2022 to incorporate the verification of necessary support documentation to support eligibility determinations and update status in MAXIS. This was something that we are planning on checking when workers process Medical Assistance renewals. If other programs are active on the case, workers are checking the file to make sure supporting documentation is on file and maxis matches those results. Department wide communication to staff regarding importance of supporting documentation in the case file prior to approval of the case has been implemented and is ongoing. The detail regarding the Quality Assurance review process and the Corrective Action Plan has been documented and communicated to provide guidance for new staff, refreshers for current staff, and to ensure the appropriate actions are followed. The documentation will be reviewed and revised as needed to ensure compliance and consistency throughout the department. Supervisory review has been implemented with new hires. As issues are identified with current staff, enhanced review strategies and procedures are implemented to review the documentation needed prior to approval of a case. All staff will be required to take the Citizenship and Identity training on an annual basis. If errors are found and overpayments occur the Department will follow the protocol of the Minnesota Department of Human Services regarding the collection of any overpayments. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2022
2020-003
In a sample of three contracts tested over $10,000, one was over the simplified acquisition threshold. This contract did not have documentation supporting full and open competition or that a cost or price analysis was performed. In addition, all three contracts did not have documentation to meet the verification requirements whether the vendors were debarred, suspended, or whether other exclusions existed. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The simplified acquisition threshold includes procurements over $175,000. Per the County?s debarment policy, procurement transactions subject to suspension and debarment verification requirement are those over $10,000. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County was not in compliance with federal grant requirements. Cause: The County informed us that the contract over the simplified acquisition threshold was not originally intended to be used for a federal program purchase. In addition, these contracts were managed outside of the County?s Procurement department, who completes suspension and debarment verifications. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation supporting full and open competition in its contracts, as well as a cost or price analysis, in all cases where the purchase could be made with federal funds. In addition, the County should implement procedures for completing suspension and debarment verifications when contracts are managed outside of the County?s Procurement department. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-005 Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Significant Deficiency and Other Matter Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Program: 10.557 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Award Number and Year: 150371 and 150652; 2021 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Health Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations ? 200.319 states that all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and ? 200.320. Condition: In a sample of three contracts tested over $10,000, one was over the simplified acquisition threshold. This contract did not have documentation supporting full and open competition or that a cost or price analysis was performed. In addition, all three contracts did not have documentation to meet the verification requirements whether the vendors were debarred, suspended, or whether other exclusions existed. Questioned Costs: None. Context: The simplified acquisition threshold includes procurements over $175,000. Per the County?s debarment policy, procurement transactions subject to suspension and debarment verification requirement are those over $10,000. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County was not in compliance with federal grant requirements. Cause: The County informed us that the contract over the simplified acquisition threshold was not originally intended to be used for a federal program purchase. In addition, these contracts were managed outside of the County?s Procurement department, who completes suspension and debarment verifications. Recommendation: We recommend the County maintain documentation supporting full and open competition in its contracts, as well as a cost or price analysis, in all cases where the purchase could be made with federal funds. In addition, the County should implement procedures for completing suspension and debarment verifications when contracts are managed outside of the County?s Procurement department. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2021-005 Finding Title: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Program: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (ALN 10.557) Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Janelle White ? Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Francis Odhiambo ? Controller Health and Wellness Service Team Corrective Action Planned: The contract managers will ensure that documentation for debarment checks is included with every internal contract. They will also run a debarment check when working from other department contracts in case a check hasn?t been performed by the other department. To ensure that 2022 is correct, the contract managers will go back through every internal contract that they have done during the year to ensure that debarment check documentation has been included. If documentation hasn?t been included, the contract manager will perform the debarment check and add the documentation to the file. To ensure an open and competitive process occurred, the contract managers will ask other departments if the vendor selection method complies with federal grant requirements going forward. They will note the date asked and the department contact name in the contract file. Anticipated Completion Date: 09/30/2022
In the sample of three quarterly SF-425 reports tested, two reports included amounts that could not be reconciled to supporting documentation; were for estimated administrative costs not yet paid or disbursed; or were applicable to expenditures funded with the ERA2 award, and were therefore duplicated. In addition, in the sample of three quarterly ERA Compliance reports tested, the auditor was not able to reconcile expenditure data to supporting documentation. Questioned Costs: $115,482 Context: Ramsey County received ERA funding from the U.S. Department of the Treasury; $7.3 million established by Section 501 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (?ERA1? funds) and $3 million established by Section 3201 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (?ERA2? funds). The County expended approximately $4.9 million in total of these funds in 2021. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County did not report in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury guidance. Cause: The County informed us that data reported in the SF-425 and ERA Compliance reports could not be re-created because data is live and changes from day to day. In addition, the County was waiting for the City of Saint Paul to approve the administrative costs prior to making payment. Lastly, the expenditures funded with the ERA2 award were originally budgeted to ERA1, and were duplicated in error. Recommendation: We recommend the County review U.S. Department of the Treasury guidance and form instructions to ensure it is correctly reporting its ERA activity. In addition, the County should maintain documentation to support data reported. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-006 Reporting Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Repeat Finding Since: N/A Type of Finding: Internal Control Over Compliance and Compliance Severity of Deficiency: Material Weakness and Modified Opinion Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Program: 21.023 COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance Award Number and Year: ERA0255, 2021 Pass-Through Agency: N/A 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. In addition, per the instructions to the Federal Financial Report (SF-425), ?Cash Disbursements? are equal to the amount of the federal cash disbursements. Lastly, U.S. Treasury Reporting Guidance for the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program requires ERA recipients to certify and submit reports on each ERA award separately. Condition: In the sample of three quarterly SF-425 reports tested, two reports included amounts that could not be reconciled to supporting documentation; were for estimated administrative costs not yet paid or disbursed; or were applicable to expenditures funded with the ERA2 award, and were therefore duplicated. In addition, in the sample of three quarterly ERA Compliance reports tested, the auditor was not able to reconcile expenditure data to supporting documentation. Questioned Costs: $115,482 Context: Ramsey County received ERA funding from the U.S. Department of the Treasury; $7.3 million established by Section 501 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (?ERA1? funds) and $3 million established by Section 3201 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (?ERA2? funds). The County expended approximately $4.9 million in total of these funds in 2021. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: The County did not report in accordance with U.S. Department of the Treasury guidance. Cause: The County informed us that data reported in the SF-425 and ERA Compliance reports could not be re-created because data is live and changes from day to day. In addition, the County was waiting for the City of Saint Paul to approve the administrative costs prior to making payment. Lastly, the expenditures funded with the ERA2 award were originally budgeted to ERA1, and were duplicated in error. Recommendation: We recommend the County review U.S. Department of the Treasury guidance and form instructions to ensure it is correctly reporting its ERA activity. In addition, the County should maintain documentation to support data reported. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2021-006 Finding Title: Reporting Program: COVID-19 ? Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023) Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Matt Phillips, Kim Hansen, Kia Xiong, Katie Walloch Operational Support Services Corrective Action Planned: Two of the three SF-425 Reports submitted to Treasury could not be reconciled. Thus, making the reports not in compliance with Treasury. We are working on transitioning reporting responsibility to Operational Support Services and keeping maintaining records that will tie out to what is reported to Treasury. The system that was used changes daily. We have reviewed Treasury guidance and believe this will not be an issue for 2022. Anticipated Completion Date: August of 2022
FAC accepted this audit on July 13, 2021 — management decision was due January 13, 2022.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were detected in the sample of 40 cases tested: ? Nineteen case files had supporting documentation that was inconsistent with MAXIS; ? Five case files had citizenship that was not verified; ? One case file had income that was not verified; and ? One case file did not have the adoption assistance agreement on file. We also noted that reviews of the Medical Assistance Program case files are not performed on a consistent basis. 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?s Health and Wellness Administration Division to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota DHS maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The Health and Wellness Administration Division has implemented supervisory reviews for other federal programs, and is working on implementing this on a consistent basis across all applicable federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Missing, improper input of, or outdated information increases the risk that participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was obtained, verified, maintained in the case files, or updated in the MAXIS system. Due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Administration Division include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or other method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. 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: 2020-003 Prior Year Finding Number: 2019-002 Repeat Finding Since: 2016 Eligibility Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778), Award Nos. 2005MN5ADM and 2005MN5MAP, 2020 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 award. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were detected in the sample of 40 cases tested: ? Nineteen case files had supporting documentation that was inconsistent with MAXIS; ? Five case files had citizenship that was not verified; ? One case file had income that was not verified; and ? One case file did not have the adoption assistance agreement on file. We also noted that reviews of the Medical Assistance Program case files are not performed on a consistent basis. 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?s Health and Wellness Administration Division to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota DHS maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The Health and Wellness Administration Division has implemented supervisory reviews for other federal programs, and is working on implementing this on a consistent basis across all applicable federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Missing, improper input of, or outdated information increases the risk that participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was obtained, verified, maintained in the case files, or updated in the MAXIS system. Due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Administration Division include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or other method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2020-003 (Carryforward from 2019-002) Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Tina Curry ? Director of Financial Assistance Services Bridget Blomer ? Human Services Manager Corrective Action Planned: 1. The detail regarding the Quality Assurance review process and the Corrective Action Plan has been documented and communicated during the July Department-wide leadership meeting. 2. Supervisors will then bring this information to provide guidance for new staff, refreshers for current staff, and to ensure the appropriate actions are followed. The documentation will be reviewed and revised as needed to ensure compliance and consistency throughout the department. 3. Staff will make updates to cases when the case is up for renewal. 4. Supervisors will randomly select cases from each worker, on a monthly basis, to check to make sure the case was updated in the system. If the case was not updated correctly, the worker will need to make the updates. 5. Supervisory review continues with new hires. As issues are identified with current staff, enhanced review strategies and procedures are implemented to review the documentation needed prior to approval of a case. 6. In the ongoing review of cases by each of the areas that are completing case reviews, the training is based upon the type of issues that arise from the reviews, this will vary based upon the program being reviewed and the requirements of said program. 7. If errors are found and overpayments occur the Department will follow the protocol of the Minnesota Department of Human Services regarding the collection of any overpayments. Anticipated Completion Date: 1. This will be completed in July 2021. 2. This will be completed in July and August 2021 3. Cases will be updated between September 2021 ? September 2022 4. Supervisors will randomly select cases from October 2021 ? October 2022 5. Ongoing 6. Ongoing 7. Ongoing
2019-002
FAC accepted this audit on July 8, 2020 — management decision was due January 8, 2021.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were detected in the sample of 25 cases tested: ? one case file had the Social Security number not verified; ? four case files had citizenship that was not verified; ? one case file had income that was not verified; and ? eight case files had assets that were not verified. We also noted that reviews of the Medical Assistance Program case files are not performed on a consistent basis. 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?s Health and Wellness Administration Division to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota DHS maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The Health and Wellness Administration Division has implemented supervisory reviews for other federal programs, and is working on implementing this on a consistent basis across all applicable federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Missing information, or the improper input of information into the MAXIS system, increases the risk that participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was obtained, verified, maintained in the case files, or updated in the MAXIS system. Due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Financial Assistance Services Department include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or some method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. 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: 2019-002 Prior Year Finding Number: 2016-002 Repeat Finding Since: 2016 Eligibility Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services? Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778), Award Nos. 1905MN5ADM and 1905MN5MAP, 2019 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 award. Condition: The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) maintains the computer system, MAXIS, which is used by the County to support the eligibility determination process. The following exceptions were detected in the sample of 25 cases tested: ? one case file had the Social Security number not verified; ? four case files had citizenship that was not verified; ? one case file had income that was not verified; and ? eight case files had assets that were not verified. We also noted that reviews of the Medical Assistance Program case files are not performed on a consistent basis. 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?s Health and Wellness Administration Division to perform the ?intake function? (meeting with the social services client to determine income and categorical eligibility), while the Minnesota DHS maintains MAXIS, which supports the eligibility determination process and actually pays the benefits to the participants. The Health and Wellness Administration Division has implemented supervisory reviews for other federal programs, and is working on implementing this on a consistent basis across all applicable federal programs. The sample size was based on guidance from chapter 11 of the AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits. Effect: Missing information, or the improper input of information into the MAXIS system, increases the risk that participants will receive benefits when they are not eligible. Supervisory reviews not performed on a consistent basis increases the probability that staff errors will go undetected. Cause: County program personnel entering case information into the MAXIS system did not ensure all required information was obtained, verified, maintained in the case files, or updated in the MAXIS system. Due to increased caseload demands, staff have not been able to perform supervisory reviews on a consistent basis. Recommendation: We recommend the Health and Wellness Financial Assistance Services Department include in its internal quality control review process a checklist or some method to provide reasonable assurance that all necessary documentation to support eligibility is obtained and properly updated in MAXIS. In addition, consideration should be given to providing additional training to program personnel. View of Responsible Official: Concur
Finding Number: 2019-002 (Carryforward from 2016-002) Finding Title: Eligibility Program: Medical Assistance Program (CFDA No. 93.778) Name of Contact Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Tina Curry, MSW ? Director, Financial Assistance Services Department Corrective Action Planned: The Quality Assurance Team is currently in place for SNAP and Medical Assistance Program cases. The Department is in the process of evaluating whether more resources will be allocated going forward. Internal quality control review checklists, specific to each Program area have been developed. With COVID-19, the planned full rollout slated for the end of the summer of 2020 has been pushed back to the end of the 3rd quarter to incorporate the verification of necessary support documentation to support eligibility determinations and update status in MAXIS. Department wide communication to staff regarding importance of supporting documentation in the case file prior to approval of the case has been implemented and is ongoing. The detail regarding the Quality Assurance review process and the Corrective Action Plan has been documented and communicated to provide guidance for new staff, refreshers for current staff, and to ensure the appropriate actions are followed. The documentation will be reviewed and revised as needed to ensure compliance and consistency throughout the department. Supervisory review has been implemented with new hires. As issues are identified with current staff, enhanced review strategies and procedures are implemented to review the documentation needed prior to approval of a case. Targeted training continues to be based on findings from the internal Quality Assurance Team. In the ongoing review of cases by the internal Quality Assurance team, the training is based upon the type of issues that arise from the reviews, this will vary based upon the program being reviewed and the requirements of said program. The Health & Wellness Administration Division has established a technical assistance team to assist the internal quality assurance team in strengthening their current manual audit process to comply with the agreed corrective action plan and the regulations of the grant funds. In addition, members of the Health & Wellness Administration technical assistance team have met on a quarterly basis starting in 2020 to be more involved at the Manager and Supervisor level when they implement the plan by helping them develop the tools needed to monitor their compliance progress in performing their audits. If errors are found and overpayments occur the Department will follow the protocol of the Minnesota Department of Human Services regarding the collection of any overpayments. Anticipated Completion Date: 12/31/2020
2018-004
FAC accepted this audit on June 24, 2019 — management decision was due December 24, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on July 23, 2018 — management decision was due January 23, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-002
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on August 3, 2017 — management decision was due February 3, 2018.
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.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and compliance status.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.