The Russell Child Development Center, Inc.Non-Profit

2025-001– Child and Adult Care Food Program – 10.558 – Eligibility Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts for eligible providers and children be submitted to the State for reimbursement, and that all supporting documentation be kept on file. Condition Six providers received an improper amount for their meal reimbursement for the month tested. A seventh provider did not have the proper documentation on file to support their Tier determination. Context For five of the providers, they had exceeded their license capacity on various days throughout the month tested. For one of the providers, a child was reimbursed at the Tier II rates even though they were eligible for Tier I rates. For the final provider, their file did not contain a qualifying school boundary map with the provider’s location plotted on the map to support the Tier Determination form. Effect Total known questioned costs for these errors are $153, and total likely questioned costs when compared to the full population of provider payments are $3,349. Cause For the five providers who were overcapacity, they were incorrectly input into the CACFP software as a two staff member provider, which did not match their licensed capacity. For the providers who had children incorrectly reimbursed at Tier II rates, the expiration date for their Income Eligibility Determination was incorrectly input. For the final provider, the school boundary map could not be found within the provider’s files. It is unknown whether these documents were misplaced or not properly filed in the first place. Recommendation Controls should be reviewed and updated to ensure that reimbursements are only requested for complete and accurate meal counts at the correct rate of reimbursement, and that only eligible participants are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

2025-002– Child and Adult Care Food Program – 10.558 – Subrecipient Monitoring Criteria or specific requirement Per 7 CFR 226.16(d), each sponsoring organization must provide adequate supervisory and operational personnel for the effective management and monitoring of the program at all facilities it sponsors. This includes ensuring proper frequency and type of facility reviews, which must occur at each facility at least three times each year. Two of the three reviews must be unannounced, and not more than six months may elapse between reviews. Condition Five providers were found not to have met the review frequency and type requirements. Context We determined, through testing of site visits files, that three of the providers did not have two of their three visits unannounced. Another provider missed the six month requirement by five days. The final provider did not have two of their three visits unannounced, and they missed the six month requirement by one day. Effect The Center did not meet all requirements to provide adequate supervision for its providers. Cause Turnover occurred within a key position for the CACFP program, and the replacement staff member did not have significant prior experience with the program, so they were not initially aware of the requirements. Recommendation We recommend that new staff members undergo both internal and external training relevant to their position, wherever possible. Additionally, we recommend that the Center review its policies and procedures to ensure that compliance requirements are clearly documented and communicated to all relevant staff. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

Significant Deficiency 2024-001– Child and Adult Care Food Program – 10.558 – Eligibility Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts for eligible providers and children be submitted to the State for reimbursement. Condition Six providers received an improper amount for their meal reimbursement for the month tested. Context We determined, through testing of provider meal reimbursements, that an inaccurate number of meals was submitted to the State for reimbursement for six providers in our sample. Effect Two providers were incorrectly reimbursed based off incorrectly adjusted or recapped meals. Two providers had children incorrectly marked as Tier II within the system, when those children should have been reimbursed at Tier I levels. Another provider was over their licensed capacity by one child on certain days throughout the month. For the final provider, the annual enrollment update form could not be located for one child. These items totaled to a net over-reimbursement of the providers of $7. Total estimated errors come to an over-reimbursement of $200. Cause For the providers who were reimbursed based off an incorrect meal count, the first error occurred as a result of mis-keying the provider’s handwritten meal counts into the software. The other error occurred as a result of an error made when making manual adjustments within the software, due to exceptions for capacity. For the providers who had children incorrectly marked as Tier II, the first provider did not have the child correctly marked as Tier I within the software system. The second provider had two children who were entered as Tier I, but the system was not properly recognizing that status. The two final instances noted for being over license capacity and a missing enrollment form were caused by human error. Recommendation Controls should be reviewed and updated to ensure that reimbursements are only requested for complete and accurate meal counts at the correct rate of reimbursement, and that only eligible participants are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts for eligible providers and children be submitted to the State for reimbursement. Condition Inaccurate meal counts were submitted to the state as a result of incorrectly recapped meal counts and lack of capacity of the provider. Context We determined, through testing of provider meal reimbursements, that an inaccurate number of meals was submitted to the State for reimbursement for four providers in our sample. Effect Two providers were incorrectly reimbursed based off of incorrectly counted or recapped meals. One provider was overcapacity for two days during the month tested, and one provider was overcapacity for one day during the month tested. These items totaled to a net under-reimbursement of the providers of $22. Cause Errors occurred when entering meal counts into Minute Menu and when examining the provider?s licensed capacity. Recommendation Established procedures should be followed closely to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

Significant Deficiency in Internal Control 2021-001? Child and Adult Care Food Program ? 10.558 ? Eligibility Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts for eligible providers and children be submitted to the State for reimbursement. Condition Inaccurate meal counts were submitted to the state as a result of ineligible meals, incorrectly recapped meal counts, lack of enrollment forms for children, and lack of capacity of the provider. Context We determined, through testing of provider meal reimbursements, that an inaccurate number of meals was submitted to the State for reimbursement for six providers in our sample. Effect Four providers were incorrectly reimbursed based off of ineligible meals or incorrectly counted meals. One provider was overcapacity for several days during the month tested. Lastly, an enrollment form for one family could not be found for one provider. These items totaled to questioned costs of $298. Cause An oversight of the Center?s internal control procedures caused the reimbursements to be inaccurate. Recommendation Established procedures should be followed closely to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Condition An inaccurate meal count was submitted to the State. Context We determined, through internal control testing of provider meal reimbursements, that an inaccurate number of meals was submitted to the State for reimbursement for two providers in our sample. Effect A provider was over-reimbursed for one breakfast for one eligible enrollee, and another provider was under-reimbursed for one snack for one eligible enrollee. Cause An oversight of the Center?s internal control procedures caused the reimbursements to be inaccurate. Recommendation Established procedures should be followed closely to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See corrective action plan.

Criteria or specific requirement Internal controls should be in place to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Condition An inaccurate meal count was submitted to the State. Context We determined, through internal control testing of provider meal reimbursements, that an inaccurate number of meals was submitted to the State for reimbursement for one provider for one month. Effect A provider was over-reimbursed for one snack for one enrollee. Cause An oversight of the Center?s internal control procedures caused the over-reimbursement. Recommendation Established procedures should be followed closely to ensure that complete and accurate meal counts are submitted to the State for reimbursement. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions See attached corrective action response.