EIN: 521233434
UEI: THFKQLAXPJ31
Audited by: SIKICH CPA LLC
Oversight agency: 93 [Department of Health and Human Services]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 28, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on March 20, 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 September 20, 2026 (22 days from today).
What is a management decision? →The Organization did not submit reports timely for three out of three reports tested (100%). We consider this condition to be a material weakness to the Reporting compliance requirement and is a repeat finding shown in Section IV of this report as prior year finding 2022-003. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned costs: None Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Cause: This resulted from human error and personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Late Submission of Required Financial and Progress Reports Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Number: 93.591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/State Domestic Violence Coalitions Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200 Subpart D, Performance and Financial Monitoring and Reporting, reports should be submitted within the required timeframe per the grant agreement and should tie out to the financial records. Documentation should also be kept for all financial and programmatic reports submitted for all federal awards. Condition: The Organization did not submit reports timely for three out of three reports tested (100%). We consider this condition to be a material weakness to the Reporting compliance requirement and is a repeat finding shown in Section IV of this report as prior year finding 2022-003. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned costs: None Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Cause: This resulted from human error and personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Summary of Finding The Organization did not submit reports timely for three out of three reports tested (100%). This is considered to be a material weakness to the reporting compliance requirement and is a repeat finding shown in Section IV of this report as prior year finding 2023-004. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2023-004. Due to staff turnover and the limited capacity of agency staff and contractors, MNADV has been late in grant reporting. Corrective Action Long-Term Corrective Action: To address the pattern of late reports, the organization has elected to move financial reporting to a quarterly basis whenever the grant award allows as opposed to monthly to reduce the number of required reports. Also, the executive director has elected to train additional staff on programmatic grant reporting in an effort to increase capacity. These two measures will effectively address the problem of late reporting. Responsible Parties: Executive Director, Deputy Director and Contractual Bookkeeper Completion Date: These measures were put into place starting with FY25 which began on October 1, 2024.
2022-003
During our expenditure testing, we noted one out of thirty-seven expenditures that was an unallowable cost under the grant (2.7%). We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance in internal control over compliance relating to Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements and is not considered a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned costs: $13,247 Effect: This resulted in a cost being allocated to a federal award that was unallowable. Cause: This resulted from human error and personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all costs are allowable to the grant charged. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Unallowable Costs Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Number: 93.671 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Domestic Violence Shelter and Supportive Services Criteria: 2 CFR 200.400 notes “a non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award.” 2 CFR 200.309 notes “a non- Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance and any costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or passthrough entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or passthrough entity.” 2 CFR 200.333 notes “financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the financial expenditure report." Condition: During our expenditure testing, we noted one out of thirty-seven expenditures that was an unallowable cost under the grant (2.7%). We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance in internal control over compliance relating to Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements and is not considered a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned costs: $13,247 Effect: This resulted in a cost being allocated to a federal award that was unallowable. Cause: This resulted from human error and personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all costs are allowable to the grant charged. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Summary of Findings During testing of program expenditures, one of thirty-seven expenditures (2.7%) tested was determined to be an unallowable cost under the grant. The amount identified totaled $13,247. This instance was identified as noncompliance with Allowable Costs/Cost Principles requirements. The finding is not considered a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2023-005. The administrative agent that administers the organization’s health insurance changed their name. As a result, the health insurance bill ($13,247.02) was coded to the wrong GL code. Instead of being posted to the health insurance expense code, this was erroneously posted to the GL code for other consultants. Corrective Action A. Immediate Corrective Action Taken 1. Management reviewed the specific expenditure and confirmed that it was erroneously assigned the wrong GL code. 2. The unallowable cost of $13,247 was removed from the federal award, and properly reclassified. 3. Supporting documentation of correction was retained. Completion Date: Completed prior to issuance of audited financial statements. B. Long-Term Corrective Actions The organization will develop a Vendor Change Monitoring Procedure that will require documentation and review when a vendor changes name, ownership, or payment structure. This will Include verification that the vendor is mapped to the correct GL account before payment is processed. Responsible Parties: Executive Director and Contractual Bookkeeper Completion Date: Within 60 days of the date of this memo.
Auditors noted there was missing documentary evidence of the following subrecipient monitoring requirements: obtain budgets for reasonable expenses from subrecipients, monitoring of quarterly subrecipient reports, subrecipient contract agreements, site visits, and receiving updated audit reports from subrecipients and issuing management decisions over federal award findings for pass through entities. We consider this condition to be a material weakness to the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement and is not a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization was missing documentation relating to subrecipient monitoring requirements for the year ended September 30, 2023. Cause: This is due to ineffective controls over subrecipient monitoring resulting in a lack of documentation, and miscommunications with employee turnover. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that documentation be maintained for subrecipient monitoring and to implement site visits. In addition, the Organization should follow up and obtain audited financial statements each year from subrecipients and issue management decisions for federal award findings for pass through entities. Auditors also recommend implementing written policies and procedures over subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Improper monitoring of subrecipients Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Number: 93.671 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Domestic Violence Shelter and Supportive Services Criteria: 2 CFR 200.232 states “A pass-through entity must: (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complied with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant development negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal ward provided to the subrecipient from the pass- through entity as required by 200.521.(4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section 200.513(a)(4)(viii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that confirm to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (f) Depending up on the pass-through entity’s assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient, the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass- through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient’s program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon procedures engagements as described in 200.425.” Condition: Auditors noted there was missing documentary evidence of the following subrecipient monitoring requirements: obtain budgets for reasonable expenses from subrecipients, monitoring of quarterly subrecipient reports, subrecipient contract agreements, site visits, and receiving updated audit reports from subrecipients and issuing management decisions over federal award findings for pass through entities. We consider this condition to be a material weakness to the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement and is not a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization was missing documentation relating to subrecipient monitoring requirements for the year ended September 30, 2023. Cause: This is due to ineffective controls over subrecipient monitoring resulting in a lack of documentation, and miscommunications with employee turnover. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that documentation be maintained for subrecipient monitoring and to implement site visits. In addition, the Organization should follow up and obtain audited financial statements each year from subrecipients and issue management decisions for federal award findings for pass through entities. Auditors also recommend implementing written policies and procedures over subrecipient monitoring. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Summary of Findings Auditors noted there was missing documentary evidence of the following subrecipient monitoring requirements: obtain budgets for reasonable expenses from subrecipients, monitoring of quarterly subrecipient reports, subrecipient contract agreements, site visits, and receiving updated audit reports from subrecipients and issuing management decisions over federal award findings for pass through entities. We consider this condition to be a material weakness to the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement and is not a repeated finding. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. There were no questioned costs. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2023-006. The organization served as a passthrough entity for federal grant funds. MNADV believed that it was in compliance with monitoring responsibilities as outlined in the grant agreement from the Maryland Governor’s Office on Crime Prevention, Youth and Victim Services (GOCPYVS) which stated: 3.7. MNADV Monitoring and Reporting of Subrecipients Sub-recipients will be required to submit quarterly programmatic reports to MNADV regarding grant activities, goals, objectives, and performance measures. MNADV will monitor the subrecipient receiving funds, including those that serve underserved populations. This may include reviewing progress reports, reasonable performance measures, financial reports, standard FVPSA required statistics, desk site visits, audits, regular communications, or other monitoring activities as required by federal or state regulation. Information regarding sub-recipients’ activities will be included in MNADV’s quarterly program reports to GOCPYVS. MNADV did employ the following monitoring activities outlined above: • Collected and reviewed progress reports • Collected and reviewed reasonable performance measures • Collected and reviewed financial reports • Collected and reviewed standard FVPSA required statistics • Maintained regular communications with subgrantees Because the grant award language uses the term ‘may include’, we did not interpret this language as requiring us to conduct audits or site visits. Information regarding sub-recipients’ activities based on information gathered during monitoring was included in MNADV’s quarterly program reports to GOCPYVS. However, the organization does concede that it did not meet all the monitoring requirements outlined in 2 CFR 200. Corrective Action A. Immediate Corrective Actions Taken No immediate action could be taken as all subgrants subject to this audit were closed at time of audit. B. Long-Term Corrective Action Plan MNADV will develop and implement a comprehensive written Subrecipient Monitoring Policy that complies with 2 CFR 200.331–200.333 and clearly distinguishes between grant agreement language and federal compliance requirements. Responsible Parties: Executive Director and Subgrantee Program Monitor Completion Target: Within 60 days of the date of this memo.
The Organization does not have a cost allocation plan in place. Due to this, there is a lack of documentation around allocation methodology and lookback on budget to actual analysis. We consider this to be a material weakness in internal controls over compliance with Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and is not considered a repeated finding. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization does not have a written cost allocation plan to follow and administrative costs may not be sufficiently identified. As the Organization has more than one funding source, costs may be inequitably charged to programs. Cause:Although the Organization appears to be allocating costs, they still need to have written cost allocation plan created to make sure the plan is being followed and costs are charged appropriately to programs. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that the Organization review their system in place for cost allocation and implement a written cost allocation plan to ensure costs are charged appropriately to programs. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Missing Written Cost Allocation Plan and Lack of Documentation Around Allocation Methodology and Lookback on Budget to Actual Analysis Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/State Domestic Violence Coalitions. 93.671 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Domestic Violence Shelter and Supportive Services. Criteria: In accordance with the requirements in 2 CFR part 230 establishes cost principles for determining costs of grants, contracts, and other agreements with non-profit organizations. The principles are designed to provide that the Federal Government bear its fair share of costs except where restricted or prohibited by law. Administrative expenses are described as: “The expenses under this category are those that have been incurred for the overall general executive, and administration of the organization and other expenses of a general nature that do not relate solely to any major function of the organization." Condition: The Organization does not have a cost allocation plan in place. Due to this, there is a lack of documentation around allocation methodology and lookback on budget to actual analysis. We consider this to be a material weakness in internal controls over compliance with Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and is not considered a repeated finding. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization does not have a written cost allocation plan to follow and administrative costs may not be sufficiently identified. As the Organization has more than one funding source, costs may be inequitably charged to programs. Cause:Although the Organization appears to be allocating costs, they still need to have written cost allocation plan created to make sure the plan is being followed and costs are charged appropriately to programs. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that the Organization review their system in place for cost allocation and implement a written cost allocation plan to ensure costs are charged appropriately to programs. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Summary of Findings The Organization does not have a cost allocation plan in place. Due to this, there is a lack of documentation around allocation methodology and lookback on budget to actual analysis. We consider this to be a material weakness in internal controls over compliance with Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and is not considered a repeated finding. Although the Organization appears to be allocating costs, they still need to have written cost allocation plan created to make sure the plan is being followed and costs are charged appropriately to programs. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2023-007. The organization does have a cost allocation process, but it is not a formal written policy. Corrective Action 1. Review the current system in place for cost allocation. 2. Develop and implement a written cost allocation plan to ensure costs are charged appropriately to programs. Responsible Parties: Executive Director and Contractual Bookkeeper Completion Date: Within 60 days of the date of this memo.
Testing identified one expenditure out of a sample of seven (14.3%) were not properly recorded in the correct fiscal year. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance in internal controls over compliance with Period of Performance and is not considered a repeated finding. Questioned Costs: $3,300 Effect: As a result, the Organization did not record an expenditure in the appropriate fiscal year. Cause: This is due to lack of controls over expenditure monitoring and miscommunications with employee turnover. Recommendation: Auditors recommend the organization implement procedures to review dates when expenditures are incurred and ensure they are accurately recorded and charged to the appropriate fiscal year for the grant period. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Expense Recorded in Incorrect Period of Performance Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Numbers: 93.591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/State Domestic Violence Coalitions. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.309 notes “a non-Federal entity may charge to the Federal award only allowable costs incurred during the period of performance and any costs incurred before the Federal awarding agency or passthrough entity made the Federal award that were authorized by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity.” Condition: Testing identified one expenditure out of a sample of seven (14.3%) were not properly recorded in the correct fiscal year. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance in internal controls over compliance with Period of Performance and is not considered a repeated finding. Questioned Costs: $3,300 Effect: As a result, the Organization did not record an expenditure in the appropriate fiscal year. Cause: This is due to lack of controls over expenditure monitoring and miscommunications with employee turnover. Recommendation: Auditors recommend the organization implement procedures to review dates when expenditures are incurred and ensure they are accurately recorded and charged to the appropriate fiscal year for the grant period. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Summary of Findings Testing identified one expenditure out of seven sampled (14.3%) totaling $3,300 that was not recorded in the proper fiscal year. This was determined to be an instance of noncompliance in internal control over compliance related to Period of Performance requirements. The finding is not considered a repeated finding. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2023-008. The organization failed to accurately review an expenditure that was billed in the audited fiscal year but was actually a prepay for services in the following fiscal year. The expenditure did appropriately fall within the correct grant award period as the grant spanned both fiscal years. This oversight was due to human error. Corrective Action A. Immediate Corrective Action Taken 1.Management reviewed the transaction in question and verified the correct period of performance. 2.The expenditure was reclassified to the appropriate fiscal year. 3.A review of expenditures recorded near the fiscal year-end for all federal awards was conducted to identify any additional cutoff errors. 4.Supporting documentation for corrections was retained. Completion Date: Completed prior to issuance of audited financial statements. B. Long-Term Corrective Actions The organization will implement enhanced year-end closing procedures that will include review of all invoices for the period of service to ensure that expenditures recorded near the start or end of a fiscal year are aligned with the proper fiscal year. Prepaid service expenditures will be recorded as accruals. Responsible Party: Executive Director and Contractual Bookkeeper Implementation Date: Beginning current fiscal year-end and ongoing.
FAC accepted this audit on February 5, 2025 — management decision was due August 5, 2025.
The Organization did not comply with the reporting requirements in accordance with grant requirements. We tested the entire population, which was four in total (three annual financial reports and one programmatic report) required to be submitted. During our testing, we noted that all were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Questioned costs: None Context: Federal agencies rely on these reports to ensure that recipients are meeting their expectations. Therefore delays in reporting can result in delays of the receipt of funding. Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. This is a repeat finding of 2021-002. Cause: This resulted from human error and recent personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-003 Late submission of required financial, programmatic, and performance reports Audit Results: Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing #: 93.591 Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions Grant Award Numbers: 2101MDSDVC21, 2201MDSTC6, 2101MDSDC6. Federal Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services. Criteria: All of the grants under these programs require that financial, programmatic, and performance reports be submitted on a monthly, quarterly basis and/or annual basis. Monthly and quarterly financial and performance reports are due within thirty calendar days from the end of each quarter. Annual financial and performance reports are due within 90 calendar days from the end of each grant year. Condition: The Organization did not comply with the reporting requirements in accordance with grant requirements. We tested the entire population, which was four in total (three annual financial reports and one programmatic report) required to be submitted. During our testing, we noted that all were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Questioned costs: None Context: Federal agencies rely on these reports to ensure that recipients are meeting their expectations. Therefore delays in reporting can result in delays of the receipt of funding. Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. This is a repeat finding of 2021-002. Cause: This resulted from human error and recent personnel changes at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and their response is included with the Corrective Action Plan.
Finding - Federal Award 2022-003 Summary of Finding Late submission of required financial, programmatic, and performance reports: All of the grants under these programs require that financial, programmatic, and performance reports be submitted on a monthly, quarterly basis and/or annual basis. Monthly and quarterly financial and performance reports are due within thirty calendar days from the end of each quarter. Annual financial and performance reports are due within 90 calendar days from the end of each grant year. During our testing, we noted nine reports that were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of non_x0002_compliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance with the reporting requirement. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence MNADV concurs with the finding and recommendation labeled 2022-003. Corrective Action Due to the limited capacity of agency staff and contractors, MNADV has been late in grant reporting. As a result of ongoing lateness of reports, MNADV has elected to move financial reporting to a quarterly basis as opposed to monthly to reduce the number of required reports. Also, the executive director has elected to train additional staff on programmatic grant reporting in an effort to increase capacity. These two measures will effectively address the problem of late reporting. These measures were put into place starting with FY25 which began on October 1, 2024. Jennifer Pollitt Hill, Executive Director
2021-002
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2024 — management decision was due September 29, 2024.
The Organization did not comply with the reporting requirements in accordance with grant requirements. We tested the entire population, which was twenty eight in total required to be submitted. During our testing, we noted nine reports that were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of non-compliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Questioned costs: None Context: Federal agencies rely on these reports to ensure that recipients are meeting their expectations. Therefore delays in reporting can result in delays of the receipt of funding. Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Cause: This resulted from human error and turnover at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: MNADV continued to experience significant transitions during FY21. FY21 was the first full fiscal year for the new Executive Director and a new finance manager was hired at the beginning of FY21. These senior leadership transitions were marked by a learning curve for both the Executive Director and Finance Manager who had to learn the reporting processes and online systems for each of the different grants which included federal, state and private reporting systems. Also of note was a lack of completed audits for FY19 and FY20, which meant that substantial work had to be completed to ensure that what was reported for each grant was indeed accurate. All of these factors contributed to reports being late and none of these factors are still at play. The current Executive Director and Finance Manager are now familiar with all reporting systems. All login and secondary authentication methods have been properly set up and are functioning as desired. Internal processes for collecting grant data and reporting out this data have been established.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Late Submission of Required Financial, Programmatic, and Performance Reports Audit Results: Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing #: 16.582 Crime Victim Assistance/Discretionary Grants and 93.591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/State Domestic Violence Coalitions Grant Award Numbers: VOCA-2018-003, 2001MDSDVC, 2101MDSDVC21, 2001MDSDC3 Federal Agency: United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Pass-through Entity (VOCA-2018-003): State of Maryland - Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention. Criteria: All of the grants under these programs require that financial, programmatic, and performance reports be submitted on a monthly, quarterly basis and/or annual basis. Monthly and quarterly financial and performance reports are due within thirty calendar days from the end of each quarter. Annual financial and performance reports are due within 90 calendar days from the end of each grant year. Condition: The Organization did not comply with the reporting requirements in accordance with grant requirements. We tested the entire population, which was twenty eight in total required to be submitted. During our testing, we noted nine reports that were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of non-compliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Questioned costs: None Context: Federal agencies rely on these reports to ensure that recipients are meeting their expectations. Therefore delays in reporting can result in delays of the receipt of funding. Effect: As a result of the late submission, the Organization is not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Cause: This resulted from human error and turnover at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: We recommend reviewing the controls in place to ensure that all future reports are submitted on time and in accordance with grant requirements. If the Organization expects that there will be a delay in the submission of the reports, they should obtain permission to extend the submission date from the awarding agency. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: MNADV continued to experience significant transitions during FY21. FY21 was the first full fiscal year for the new Executive Director and a new finance manager was hired at the beginning of FY21. These senior leadership transitions were marked by a learning curve for both the Executive Director and Finance Manager who had to learn the reporting processes and online systems for each of the different grants which included federal, state and private reporting systems. Also of note was a lack of completed audits for FY19 and FY20, which meant that substantial work had to be completed to ensure that what was reported for each grant was indeed accurate. All of these factors contributed to reports being late and none of these factors are still at play. The current Executive Director and Finance Manager are now familiar with all reporting systems. All login and secondary authentication methods have been properly set up and are functioning as desired. Internal processes for collecting grant data and reporting out this data have been established.
2021-002 Summary of Finding (optional) Late submission of required financial, programmatic, and performance reports: All of the grants under these programs require that financial, programmatic, and performance reports be submitted on a monthly, quarterly basis and/or annual basis. Monthly and quarterly financial and performance reports are due within thirty calendar days from the end of each quarter. Annual financial and performance reports are due within 90 calendar days from the end of each grant year. During our testing, we noted nine reports that were submitted after the deadline. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance and a material weakness in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence The Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence concurs with this finding. Corrective Action MNADV continued to experience significant transitions during FY21. FY21 was the first full fiscal year for the new Executive Director and a new finance manager was hired at the beginning of FY21. These senior leadership transitions were marked by a learning curve for both the Executive Director and Finance Manager who had to learn the reporting processes and online systems for each of the different grants which included federal, state and private reporting systems. Also of note was a lack of completed audits for FY19 and FY20, which meant that substantial work had to be completed to ensure that what was reported for each grant was indeed accurate. All of these factors contributed to reports being late and none of these factors are still at play. The current Executive Director and Finance Manager are now familiar with all reporting systems. All login and secondary authentication methods have been properly set up and are functioning as desired. Internal processes for collecting grant data and reporting out this data have been established.
Bid or sole source documentation was missing for one contracts and in addition, for that contract, there was no documentation of the verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred. We consider this to be an instance of non-compliance and a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Context: It is important to determine that contractors used are eligible for work and that they have not been suspended or debarred from performing work on projects supported by federal funds It is also important to have full and open competition on contract work that is federally funded. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization is not in compliance with the requirements for procurement, suspension and debarment. Cause: This resulted from human error and turnover at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that the Organization maintain all federal award documentation in a location where all authorized personnel have access in order to ensure that it can always be located. We also recommend that management create a process for procurement, including how bids are obtained and maintained for proof of compliance with Uniform Guidance. Management should also establish procedures for verifying that contractors are not suspended or debarred and a system for maintaining this verification should be established. It is critical to maintain detailed documentation to ensure compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The contract highlighted as part of this audit was a contract that predated FY21 and both the current Executive Director and Finance Manager. As this was not a new contract, no bid or verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred was conducted during FY21. However, it is understood that this should have been completed in prior years and the fact that there was no documentation to support the completion of this activity is problematic. In order to ensure that proper sole source documentation is in place, MNADV will review all sole source contracts over $10,000 and verify that a bid process is in place and all vendors are properly vetted for suspension or debarment. This will be completed by May 31, 2024.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Missing documentation for procurement, suspension and debarment Audit Results: Information on Federal Programs: Assistance Listing #: 16.582 Crime Victim Assistance/Discretionary Grants and 93.591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/State Domestic Violence Coalitions Grant Award Numbers: VOCA-2018-003, 2001MDSDVC, 2101MDSDVC21, 2001MDSDC3 Federal Agency: United States Department of Justice, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Pass-through Entity (VOCA-2018-003): State of Maryland - Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention. Criteria: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.318, any contracts procured with federal funds for over $10,000 should be obtained via a bidding process or documentation is required to show that the contractor is the sole source for the services. In addition, the Organization should keep documentation to show that they have verified that contractors are not suspended or debarred. Condition: Bid or sole source documentation was missing for one contracts and in addition, for that contract, there was no documentation of the verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred. We consider this to be an instance of non-compliance and a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Context: It is important to determine that contractors used are eligible for work and that they have not been suspended or debarred from performing work on projects supported by federal funds It is also important to have full and open competition on contract work that is federally funded. Questioned Costs: None Effect: As a result, the Organization is not in compliance with the requirements for procurement, suspension and debarment. Cause: This resulted from human error and turnover at the accounting and management level. Recommendation: Auditors recommend that the Organization maintain all federal award documentation in a location where all authorized personnel have access in order to ensure that it can always be located. We also recommend that management create a process for procurement, including how bids are obtained and maintained for proof of compliance with Uniform Guidance. Management should also establish procedures for verifying that contractors are not suspended or debarred and a system for maintaining this verification should be established. It is critical to maintain detailed documentation to ensure compliance with Uniform Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The contract highlighted as part of this audit was a contract that predated FY21 and both the current Executive Director and Finance Manager. As this was not a new contract, no bid or verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred was conducted during FY21. However, it is understood that this should have been completed in prior years and the fact that there was no documentation to support the completion of this activity is problematic. In order to ensure that proper sole source documentation is in place, MNADV will review all sole source contracts over $10,000 and verify that a bid process is in place and all vendors are properly vetted for suspension or debarment. This will be completed by May 31, 2024.
2021-003 Summary of Finding (optional) Missing Documentation for procurement, suspension and debarment: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.318, any contracts procured with federal funds for over $10,000 should be obtained via a bidding process or documentation is required to show that the contractor is the sole source for the services. In addition, the Organization should keep documentation to show that they have verified that contractors are not suspended or debarred. Bid or sole source documentation was missing for one contract and in addition, for that contract, there was no documentation of the verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred. We consider this to be an instance of non-compliance and a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance for the reporting requirement. Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence The Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence concurs with this finding. Corrective Action The contract highlighted as part of this audit was a contract that predated FY21 and both the current Executive Director and Finance Manager. As this was not a new contract, no bid or verification that the contractor was not suspended or debarred was conducted during FY21. g However, it is understood that this should have been completed in prior years and the fact that there was no documentation to support the completion of this activity is problematic. In order to ensure that proper sole source documentation is in place, MNADV will review all sole source contracts over $10,000 and verify that a bid process is in place and all vendors are properly vetted for suspension or debarment. This will be completed by May 31, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on April 4, 2022 — management decision was due October 4, 2022.
See detail within Finding 2020-002. Cause: See detail within Finding 2020-002. Effect: The Organization did not follow established practices and/or failed to document the applicable review process. A correcting journal entry was made to remove the double charge of the September 2020 payroll period and lessen total program personnel and fringe related costs in the amount of $25,802. The expenditures by program on the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards (SEFA) properly reflect this adjustment by the following awards; CFDA 93.591 FVSPA & FVSPA CARES $ 5,895 CFDA 16.526 LAP DEMO-39 3,347 CFDA 16.526 LAP NAT?L TA-57 3,005 CFDA 16.575 GOCCP: VOCA 6,925 CFDA 16.588 VAWA STOP 4,526 CFDA 16.817 LAP COURTS-46 2,104 $ 25,802 Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: See detail within Finding 2020-002. View of Responsible Officials: See response listed for Finding 2020-002.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-004 - Activities Allowed & Allowable Costs ? Internal Controls over Payroll and Double Posting Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that payroll systems must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed and are supported by a system of internal controls that provides reasonable assurances that charges are accurate; allowable and reasonable; and properly allocated. Condition: See detail within Finding 2020-002. Cause: See detail within Finding 2020-002. Effect: The Organization did not follow established practices and/or failed to document the applicable review process. A correcting journal entry was made to remove the double charge of the September 2020 payroll period and lessen total program personnel and fringe related costs in the amount of $25,802. The expenditures by program on the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards (SEFA) properly reflect this adjustment by the following awards; CFDA 93.591 FVSPA & FVSPA CARES $ 5,895 CFDA 16.526 LAP DEMO-39 3,347 CFDA 16.526 LAP NAT?L TA-57 3,005 CFDA 16.575 GOCCP: VOCA 6,925 CFDA 16.588 VAWA STOP 4,526 CFDA 16.817 LAP COURTS-46 2,104 $ 25,802 Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: See detail within Finding 2020-002. View of Responsible Officials: See response listed for Finding 2020-002.
Management agrees with this finding and has subsequently changed the timesheet approval and collection process. Timesheets are now completed electronically through a software program that requires supervisory approval of staff in order for the timesheet to be completed and forwarded for payment. This system was established and has been consistently and successfully in place since October of 2020. In terms of the double posting issue, this was a result of the transitions of both the Executive Director and the Financial Manager. Since these transitions were in quick succession, knowledge of the prior processes was not well known or well documented. Upon discovery a correcting journal entry was made to remove the double charge of the September 2020 payroll period.
See detail within Finding 2020-003. Cause: See detail within Finding 2020-003. Effect: See detail within Finding 2020-003. The overall effect was an adjustment of $50,116 to clear the negative in the M&G class, reduce program fringe benefit costs, and reflect deferred revenue at year-end for the various programs affected. The expenditures by program on the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards (SEFA) properly reflect this adjustment by the following awards; CFDA 93.591 FVSPA & FVSPA CARES $ 12,564 CFDA 16.526 LAP DEMO-39 9,021 CFDA 16.526 LAP NAT?L TA-57 6,139 CFDA 16.556 VAWA SET ASIDE 2,145 CFDA 16.575 GOCCP: VOCA 7,603 CFDA 16.582 VOCT 4,911 CFDA 16.588 VAWA STOP 4,210 CFDA 16.817 LAP COURTS-46 3,523 $ 50,116 Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: See detail within Finding 2020-003. View of Responsible Officials: See response listed for Finding 2020-002.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-005 - Activities Allowed & Allowable Costs ? Overcharging of Fringe Benefits Criteria: The Uniform Guidance indicates that leave costs, included in fringe benefits, are allowable if all of the following criteria are met: (1) They are provided under established written leave policies; (2) The costs are equitably allocated to all related activities, including Federal awards; and, (3) The accounting basis (cash or accrual) selected for costing each type of leave is consistently followed by the non-Federal entity or specified grouping of employees. (i) When a non-Federal entity uses the cash basis of accounting, the cost of leave is recognized in the period that the leave is taken and paid for. Payments for unused leave when an employee retires or terminates employment are allowable in the year of payment. (ii) The accrual basis may be only used for those types of leave for which a liability as defined by GAAP exists when the leave is earned. When a non-Federal entity uses the accrual basis of accounting, allowable leave costs are the lesser of the amount accrued or funded. Condition: See detail within Finding 2020-003. Cause: See detail within Finding 2020-003. Effect: See detail within Finding 2020-003. The overall effect was an adjustment of $50,116 to clear the negative in the M&G class, reduce program fringe benefit costs, and reflect deferred revenue at year-end for the various programs affected. The expenditures by program on the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards (SEFA) properly reflect this adjustment by the following awards; CFDA 93.591 FVSPA & FVSPA CARES $ 12,564 CFDA 16.526 LAP DEMO-39 9,021 CFDA 16.526 LAP NAT?L TA-57 6,139 CFDA 16.556 VAWA SET ASIDE 2,145 CFDA 16.575 GOCCP: VOCA 7,603 CFDA 16.582 VOCT 4,911 CFDA 16.588 VAWA STOP 4,210 CFDA 16.817 LAP COURTS-46 3,523 $ 50,116 Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: See detail within Finding 2020-003. View of Responsible Officials: See response listed for Finding 2020-002.
Management agrees with this finding. This error was a result of the transitions of both the Executive Director and the Financial Manager. Since these transitions were in quick succession, knowledge of the prior processes was not well known or well documented. MNADV current practice is to charge leave when it is taken and not when accrued. This new process eliminates any error that might occur from not properly reversing the payroll fringe allocation.
It was past practice of the Organization to charge rent and other administrative costs to the various award programs based on the allocation of time and effort, however during fiscal year 2020, rent costs were charged to the various programs via a budget estimate. Per inquiry of current management, the previous Fiscal Manager ?determined the rent portion by taking the total rent expense and dividing it by the portion of the budget that the grant covered, then charged the program each month by this amount.? Cause: As noted in a previous finding, there was transition in the Fiscal Manager position prior to year-end and it appears this issue was caused by a lack of understanding by the previous Fiscal Manager of how costs are allowed to be charged under the Uniform Guidance. Effect: The various federal award programs were charged for rent costs based on an estimated budget allocation and not based on a relative proportional benefit, such as the basis of salaries and fringes. Although the difference between budget and proportional benefit is immaterial by program for fiscal year 2020, the potential for a material misstatement may exist. Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review its current policies on how rent is being allocated and charged to the various programs to ensure these costs are being charged on an equitable basis based on relative proportional benefit. View of Responsible Officials: During fiscal year 2020, the Executive Director departed the agency in March of 2020 and the Interim Executive Director joined the staff in June of 2020. Additionally, the Finance Manager departed the agency in September of 2020 and a new Finance Manager joined the staff that same month. These transitions also occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the office was operating on a primarily virtual basis. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. As noted in the Effect section listed above, the difference between budget and proportional benefit is immaterial by program for fiscal year 2020. Management maintains that this not unexpected as most of the budget is personnel. However, subsequent to this finding, MNADV plans to implement a quarterly review process to ensure that rent is allocated based on a relative proportional benefit, such as the basis of salaries and fringe.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-006 ? Activities Allowed & Allowable Costs ? Allocation of Rent Criteria: The Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR ? 200.405, indicates that if a cost benefits two or more projects in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the relative proportional benefit. Condition: It was past practice of the Organization to charge rent and other administrative costs to the various award programs based on the allocation of time and effort, however during fiscal year 2020, rent costs were charged to the various programs via a budget estimate. Per inquiry of current management, the previous Fiscal Manager ?determined the rent portion by taking the total rent expense and dividing it by the portion of the budget that the grant covered, then charged the program each month by this amount.? Cause: As noted in a previous finding, there was transition in the Fiscal Manager position prior to year-end and it appears this issue was caused by a lack of understanding by the previous Fiscal Manager of how costs are allowed to be charged under the Uniform Guidance. Effect: The various federal award programs were charged for rent costs based on an estimated budget allocation and not based on a relative proportional benefit, such as the basis of salaries and fringes. Although the difference between budget and proportional benefit is immaterial by program for fiscal year 2020, the potential for a material misstatement may exist. Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review its current policies on how rent is being allocated and charged to the various programs to ensure these costs are being charged on an equitable basis based on relative proportional benefit. View of Responsible Officials: During fiscal year 2020, the Executive Director departed the agency in March of 2020 and the Interim Executive Director joined the staff in June of 2020. Additionally, the Finance Manager departed the agency in September of 2020 and a new Finance Manager joined the staff that same month. These transitions also occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the office was operating on a primarily virtual basis. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. As noted in the Effect section listed above, the difference between budget and proportional benefit is immaterial by program for fiscal year 2020. Management maintains that this not unexpected as most of the budget is personnel. However, subsequent to this finding, MNADV plans to implement a quarterly review process to ensure that rent is allocated based on a relative proportional benefit, such as the basis of salaries and fringe.
During fiscal year 2020, the Executive Director departed the agency in March of 2020 and the Interim Executive Director joined the staff in June of 2020. Additionally, the Finance Manager departed the agency in September of 2020 and a new Finance Manager joined the staff that same month. These transitions also occurred during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the office was operating on a primarily virtual basis. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. As noted in the Effect section listed above, the difference between budget and proportional benefit is immaterial by program for fiscal year 2020. Management maintains that this not unexpected as most of the budget is personnel. However, subsequent to this finding, MNADV plans to implement a quarterly review process to ensure that rent is allocated based on a relative proportional benefit, such as the basis of salaries and fringe.
During our cash management testing of the major programs, there was a lack of documentation to support the cash draws selected for testing. For the OVW major program, the Organization was unable to provide documentation of approval or adequate information to support total expenses requested for both cash draws selected in our sample of testing. For the VOCA major program, one of the three cash requests selected for testing did not have adequate support for total expenses of the draw. Cause: There was transition in both the Executive Director and Fiscal Manager position during fiscal year 2020 and certain records and supporting documentation could not be located and/or provided for testing. Effect: The Organization is lacking records to support some of the cash requests selected for testing. Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review its current policies over cash management to ensure cash draws are being properly approved and supported, and supporting documentation is retained. View of Responsible Officials: As mentioned in the previous response, MNADV experienced significant leadership change in FY 2020 as well as challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. Management agrees with this finding and subsequently hired an Interim Executive Director and new Finance Manager to ensure that all reimbursement requests are well documented and supported with back-up materials. Current practice is to bundle together the selected grant expenses as recorded in QuickBooks for a specific reimbursement request period, with a copy of the actual reimbursement or draw down request form submitted to the grantor and pair those with the deposit documentation that verifies when that payment was received. We believe that this should be sufficient documentation to support cash draws and/or reimbursement requests.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-007 ? Internal Controls over Cash Management Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable` assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. In addition, non-federal entities that are paid on a reimbursement basis for federal awards must maintain supporting documentation that shows that the costs for which the reimbursement was requested were paid prior to the date of the reimbursement request. Condition: During our cash management testing of the major programs, there was a lack of documentation to support the cash draws selected for testing. For the OVW major program, the Organization was unable to provide documentation of approval or adequate information to support total expenses requested for both cash draws selected in our sample of testing. For the VOCA major program, one of the three cash requests selected for testing did not have adequate support for total expenses of the draw. Cause: There was transition in both the Executive Director and Fiscal Manager position during fiscal year 2020 and certain records and supporting documentation could not be located and/or provided for testing. Effect: The Organization is lacking records to support some of the cash requests selected for testing. Questioned Costs: N/A Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review its current policies over cash management to ensure cash draws are being properly approved and supported, and supporting documentation is retained. View of Responsible Officials: As mentioned in the previous response, MNADV experienced significant leadership change in FY 2020 as well as challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. Management agrees with this finding and subsequently hired an Interim Executive Director and new Finance Manager to ensure that all reimbursement requests are well documented and supported with back-up materials. Current practice is to bundle together the selected grant expenses as recorded in QuickBooks for a specific reimbursement request period, with a copy of the actual reimbursement or draw down request form submitted to the grantor and pair those with the deposit documentation that verifies when that payment was received. We believe that this should be sufficient documentation to support cash draws and/or reimbursement requests.
As mentioned in the previous response, MNADV experienced significant leadership change in FY 2020 as well as challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the current staff cannot account for the processes that predated their employment with MNADV. Management agrees with this finding and subsequently hired an Interim Executive Director and new Finance Manager to ensure that all reimbursement requests are well documented and supported with back-up materials. Current practice is to bundle together the selected grant expenses as recorded in QuickBooks for a specific reimbursement request period, with a copy of the actual reimbursement or draw down request form submitted to the grantor and pair those with the deposit documentation that verifies when that payment was received. We believe that this should be sufficient documentation to support cash draws and/or reimbursement requests.
FAC accepted this audit on December 29, 2020 — management decision was due June 29, 2021.
As noted in Finding 2019-001, material journal entries were made which could not be supported. The majority of these journal entries related to the movement of payroll costs between programs. Cause: As noted, there was significant turnover in fiscal year 2019, both in fiscal and program staff. Based on the journal entry description in the accounting system, there appears to have been a misunderstanding of allowable costs, as budget estimates alone do not qualify as support for charges to awards. Effect: The Organization hired a contracted accountant to assist with the year-end close and correcting entries were made, as determined necessary, which included reversing the unsupported journal entries noted above. During this process, the Organization became aware that some grants were overdrawn as of September 30, 2019. To clarify, the grant awards were not overdrawn, however the grant requests for reimbursement made to date exceeded the adjusted grant expenditures, by the unsupported costs. The following closed grants are reported as overdrawn: Federal Program CFDA # Amount Capacity Building for Domestic Violence Survivor Series (73) 16.588 $19,326 VOCA Victim Assistance Formula Grant (102) 16.575 34,848 VOCA -Statewide Domestic Violence Training (51) 16.575 2,235 Total $56,409 In addition, as of September 30, 2019, deferred revenue was recorded in the amount of $40,631 for open grants that carried into fiscal year 2020. Questioned Costs: See above Recommendation: We recommend management contact the grantor agencies for resolution on those closed grants where cash requested exceeded the actual expenditures after adjustments. In addition, we recommend management reinforce the internal control policies and monitor those controls which should reduce the risk of overdrawn grants in the future. View of Responsible Officials: Management strongly disagrees with this finding and was able to reconcile the differences from the general ledger for the full amount (less $100) considered to be overdrawn. No double billing occurred and the amount received was not in excess of the amount awarded. We strongly maintain that the source documentation used for the reclassification in salary & fringe allocations to the general ledger was the result of communications with grantor agencies late in the grant period (June/July 2019) and with their complete knowledge and approval. Furthermore, Management exercised due diligence in carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities under the terms of their agreement with the Grantor, as these relate to financial reporting and in requesting budget modifications when changes in staff necessitated these modifications, by submitting an ?After the Fact Adjustments?, along with justifications for the changes in personnel staffing positions and related salary and fringe costs. Management does intend to contact the grantors to make them aware of this finding and plans to negotiate a resolution directly with the grantor. Moving forward Management will reinforce the internal control policies as detailed above.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Section III ? Major Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs U.S. Department of Justice Direct Awards Pass-through awards: Maryland Governor?s Office of Crime Control and Prevention Finding 2019-005 - Activities Allowed & Allowable Costs ? Cost Allocation Criteria: The Organization is responsible for implementing effective controls over financial reporting, including that costs are properly classified and recorded in the financial management system and supporting documentation is maintained for monthly and/or yearend journal entries. In addition, employee salaries should be recorded based on actual time and effort, as budget estimates alone do not qualify as support for charges to awards. Grantees are responsible for reconciling estimates against actual time or effort on a regular basis. Condition: As noted in Finding 2019-001, material journal entries were made which could not be supported. The majority of these journal entries related to the movement of payroll costs between programs. Cause: As noted, there was significant turnover in fiscal year 2019, both in fiscal and program staff. Based on the journal entry description in the accounting system, there appears to have been a misunderstanding of allowable costs, as budget estimates alone do not qualify as support for charges to awards. Effect: The Organization hired a contracted accountant to assist with the year-end close and correcting entries were made, as determined necessary, which included reversing the unsupported journal entries noted above. During this process, the Organization became aware that some grants were overdrawn as of September 30, 2019. To clarify, the grant awards were not overdrawn, however the grant requests for reimbursement made to date exceeded the adjusted grant expenditures, by the unsupported costs. The following closed grants are reported as overdrawn: Federal Program CFDA # Amount Capacity Building for Domestic Violence Survivor Series (73) 16.588 $19,326 VOCA Victim Assistance Formula Grant (102) 16.575 34,848 VOCA -Statewide Domestic Violence Training (51) 16.575 2,235 Total $56,409 In addition, as of September 30, 2019, deferred revenue was recorded in the amount of $40,631 for open grants that carried into fiscal year 2020. Questioned Costs: See above Recommendation: We recommend management contact the grantor agencies for resolution on those closed grants where cash requested exceeded the actual expenditures after adjustments. In addition, we recommend management reinforce the internal control policies and monitor those controls which should reduce the risk of overdrawn grants in the future. View of Responsible Officials: Management strongly disagrees with this finding and was able to reconcile the differences from the general ledger for the full amount (less $100) considered to be overdrawn. No double billing occurred and the amount received was not in excess of the amount awarded. We strongly maintain that the source documentation used for the reclassification in salary & fringe allocations to the general ledger was the result of communications with grantor agencies late in the grant period (June/July 2019) and with their complete knowledge and approval. Furthermore, Management exercised due diligence in carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities under the terms of their agreement with the Grantor, as these relate to financial reporting and in requesting budget modifications when changes in staff necessitated these modifications, by submitting an ?After the Fact Adjustments?, along with justifications for the changes in personnel staffing positions and related salary and fringe costs. Management does intend to contact the grantors to make them aware of this finding and plans to negotiate a resolution directly with the grantor. Moving forward Management will reinforce the internal control policies as detailed above.
Finding 2019-005 - Activities Allowed & Allowable Costs ? Cost Allocation Recommendation: We recommend management contact the grantor agencies for resolution on those closed grants where cash requested exceeded the actual expenditures after adjustments. In addition, we recommend management reinforce the internal control policies and monitor those controls which should reduce the risk of overdrawn grants in the future. Action Taken: Management strongly disagrees with this finding and was able to reconcile the differences from the general ledger for the full amount (less $100) considered to be overdrawn. No double billing occurred and the amount received was not in excess of the amount awarded. We strongly maintain that the source documentation used for the reclassification in salary & fringe allocations to the general ledger was the result of communications with grantor agencies late in the grant period (June/July 2019) and with their complete knowledge and approval. Furthermore, Management exercised due diligence in carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities under the terms of their agreement with the Grantor, as these relate to financial reporting and in requesting budget modifications when changes in staff necessitated these modifications, by submitting an ?After the Fact Adjustments?, along with justifications for the changes in personnel staffing positions and related salary and fringe costs. Management does intend to contact the grantors to make them aware of this finding and plans to negotiate a resolution directly with the grantor. Moving forward Management will reinforce the internal control policies as detailed above.
FAC accepted this audit on June 29, 2019 — management decision was due December 29, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on June 17, 2018 — management decision was due December 17, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on April 18, 2017 — management decision was due October 18, 2017.
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 filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
