EIN: 566001525
UEI: C1GWSADARX51
Audited by: Martin Starnes and Associates CPA, PA
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 30, 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 30, 2026 (30 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on February 26, 2025 — management decision was due August 26, 2025.
We noted instances of claims entered in EPI where adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry was not maintained. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were current in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 2 (5.0%) of the claims tested. For the first claim, the overpayment amount was incorrectly listed on the EPI420 compared to the DSS-1682 by an employee due to transposing a number. For the second claim, an overpayment amount was incorrectly listed on the EPI420 compared to the DSS-1682 by an employee keying in the “Less Adjustments” amount. Therefore, initial investigation in the claims file does not agree to the amount entered in EPI to be collected on by the County. Effect: The County may not have accurate supporting documentation for claims entered in EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Documentation to support a claim entered into EPI was not accurate. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: County DSS staff should implement controls to ensure that all documentation is maintained and agrees to what was entered into EPI. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed through the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services Program Name: DSS Crosscutting (State) SNAP Cluster AL #10.561 (245NC406S2514) Finding: 2024-001 Significant Deficiency, non-material non-compliance Special Tests and Provisions (Enterprise Program Integrity) Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, Counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the NC Fast Enterprise Program Integrity (“EPI”) system. This information includes, but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. Condition: We noted instances of claims entered in EPI where adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry was not maintained. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were current in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 2 (5.0%) of the claims tested. For the first claim, the overpayment amount was incorrectly listed on the EPI420 compared to the DSS-1682 by an employee due to transposing a number. For the second claim, an overpayment amount was incorrectly listed on the EPI420 compared to the DSS-1682 by an employee keying in the “Less Adjustments” amount. Therefore, initial investigation in the claims file does not agree to the amount entered in EPI to be collected on by the County. Effect: The County may not have accurate supporting documentation for claims entered in EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Documentation to support a claim entered into EPI was not accurate. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: County DSS staff should implement controls to ensure that all documentation is maintained and agrees to what was entered into EPI. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Finding: 2024-001 Name of Contact Person: Diane Simmons, Program Integrity Supervisor Corrective Action/Management’s Response: Management agrees with the audit finding. The Program Integrity Investigator will ensure that all documentation and evidence relative to the case is scanned into NCFAST under the Program Integrity Investigative Case. The Invesitgator will complete the DSS-1682 and review for accuracy prior to submitting the form to the Program Integrity Supervisor for approval. The Program Integrity Supervisor will complete a second party review of all DSS-1682’s and documentation to ensure that investigations and forms are completed correctly and timely. The Program Integrity Investigator will enter the claim into NCFAST after approval by the Supervisor. The second party review results will be reviewed with Program Integrity Staff monthly. Remedial training will be conducted if any errors are found. Proposed Completion Date: the above mentioned procedures will be Implemented immediately.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2024 — management decision was due September 29, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on January 18, 2023 — management decision was due July 18, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 2, 2022 — management decision was due July 2, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on January 20, 2021 — management decision was due July 20, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
Two cases had income over the limit of the documented program code for which they were currently receiving benefits. After review of the cases, both program codes should have been a different Medicaid program code based on the income. The system was not picking up the full household?s income due to the case worker missing a step to ensure that all income would be included in the eligibility determinations. Both cases were tested for the new program codes and were found to still be eligible for Medicaid benefits. Context: Of the 1,139,321 Medicaid benefit payments (valued at $68,121,117) during fiscal year 2019, we examined 60 (valued at $3,461) and determined that the above condition applied to two payments (3%). We determined that both were still eligible after redetermination with the correct income. These applicants did not have supporting documentation in their casefiles for the period tested to show they were eligible for the Medicaid program code they were receiving under. Effect: Participants could receive benefits for which they are not eligible. Cause: Caseworkers did not take proper steps in selecting or rejecting suggested program code and checking that all participant?s income was included. Indication of a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit, 2018-003, modified. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, each applicant was still eligible to receive Medicaid benefits. Recommendation: Caseworkers should review their eligibility determinations and ensure all income is included and that the income level is accurate for selected program code. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴US Department of Health and Human Services Passed through the NC Dept. of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medicaid Cluster CFDA # 93.778 Grant Number: XIX-MAP19 Finding 2019-004 Material Weakness Eligibility Criteria: In accordance with 42 CFR 435, documentation must be obtained as needed to determine if a recipient meets specific eligibility standards, and documentation must be maintained to support those determinations. In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure the accuracy of benefits being provided is within program requirements. Management must monitor activities under federal awards to assure compliance with federal requirements. Condition: Two cases had income over the limit of the documented program code for which they were currently receiving benefits. After review of the cases, both program codes should have been a different Medicaid program code based on the income. The system was not picking up the full household?s income due to the case worker missing a step to ensure that all income would be included in the eligibility determinations. Both cases were tested for the new program codes and were found to still be eligible for Medicaid benefits. Context: Of the 1,139,321 Medicaid benefit payments (valued at $68,121,117) during fiscal year 2019, we examined 60 (valued at $3,461) and determined that the above condition applied to two payments (3%). We determined that both were still eligible after redetermination with the correct income. These applicants did not have supporting documentation in their casefiles for the period tested to show they were eligible for the Medicaid program code they were receiving under. Effect: Participants could receive benefits for which they are not eligible. Cause: Caseworkers did not take proper steps in selecting or rejecting suggested program code and checking that all participant?s income was included. Indication of a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit, 2018-003, modified. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, each applicant was still eligible to receive Medicaid benefits. Recommendation: Caseworkers should review their eligibility determinations and ensure all income is included and that the income level is accurate for selected program code. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Finding: 2019-004 Name of Contact Person: Micka Terry Stanton, DSS Director Corrective Action/Management?s Response: Management concurs with the condition, context, and recommendations. Additional trainings will be conducted on eligibility determinations. In the trainings, the importance of getting the correct program code determination before moving on with the following steps of the case will be stressed. Training will be conducted on understanding the income guidelines and policy. The lead workers will continue to complete 2nd party review of cases and will check the determinations and income on all participants. All 2nd party review cases in error will be given back to the worker for corrections, which must be corrected and returned to the lead worker for follow up within 3 days. The lead workers will inform the supervisor of errors, which will be discussed at staff meetings and additional trainings as needed. A 2nd party monitoring tool will be provided to lead workers to develop as an aid for completing monthly 2nd party reviews. Proposed Completion date: Initial training was conducted on 7/24/19. Management will review this implemented process and make changes as necessary to the above procedure immediately.
2018-003
The County could not provide us with complete documentation for two samples. The form that the County uses to document an investigation, (form 1682), was missing the investigator?s signature, although it did have a supervisor?s signature. Typically, the form is signed by both parties. Context: Of the 28 samples we tested, two were not supported with case documentation to substantiate an investigation; form 1682 was not signed by the investigator. The rest of the casefiles contained sufficient case documentation of the claim entries in EPICS. Effect: There is no signed form 1682 from the investigator. Cause: Documentation of an investigation was not completed thoroughly. Indication of a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit, 2018-004, modified. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Recommendation: The County should put controls and procedures in place to ensure that documentation of investigations are accurate and complete. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴US Department of Health and Human Services Passed through the NC Dept. of Health and Human Services Program Name: SNAP Cluster CFDA # 10.561 Grant Number: 195NC406S2514 Finding 2019-005 Material Weakness Special Tests and Provisions Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.514(c)(4), management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to prevent or detect noncompliance with compliance requirements of a federal program. Counties must maintain adequate case documentation to substantiate a claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity Control System (EPICS). This information includes, but is not limited to, documentary evidence that an investigation occurred by the County prior to claim being collected on. Condition: The County could not provide us with complete documentation for two samples. The form that the County uses to document an investigation, (form 1682), was missing the investigator?s signature, although it did have a supervisor?s signature. Typically, the form is signed by both parties. Context: Of the 28 samples we tested, two were not supported with case documentation to substantiate an investigation; form 1682 was not signed by the investigator. The rest of the casefiles contained sufficient case documentation of the claim entries in EPICS. Effect: There is no signed form 1682 from the investigator. Cause: Documentation of an investigation was not completed thoroughly. Indication of a Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit, 2018-004, modified. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Recommendation: The County should put controls and procedures in place to ensure that documentation of investigations are accurate and complete. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Finding: 2019-005 Name of Contact Person: Micka Terry Stanton, DSS Director Corrective Action/Management?s Response: Management concurs with the condition, context and recommendations. See as follows: Root Cause: It has been determined that the root cause of the errors was a result of worker oversight and failing to sign the DSS-1682 after obtaining the supervisor?s signature on the form. Additionally, the previous Program Integrity Supervisor failed to sign the DSS-1682 in one finding. The current supervisor reviewed the product investigative case and product liability claim to ensure accuracy of the claim and documented the case prior to signing the DSS-1682. The absence of documentation of the investigation and claim establishment finding was a result of the agency?s inability to locate the hard file of a claim/case established prior to 1/14/2006. On 1/14/2006, Hoke County DSS experienced a building fire that resulted in the loss of many Program Integrity hard files. All available information located in EPICS (former program used to investigate and establish claims) has been transferred into the NCFAST product liability case on cases that were affected by the fire. Goal: DSS-1682 form will be signed and dated by Program Integrity Investigator and Supervisor with 100% accuracy. The Program Integrity Supervisor will not sign the DSS-1682 until the investigator has completed the investigation and signed the DSS-1682. Documentation will be completed on each investigation/referral/claim and a hard copy will be placed in the file chart. The documentation will also be scanned and attached to the Product liability claim in NCFAST. The documentation will also be saved on the Leia\user drive under the Program Integrity Investigator. The DSS-1682 will be reviewed by the Program Integrity Supervisor to ensure accuracy and completeness of the form with 100% accuracy. Claims established after 1/19/2019 are completed in NCFAST and all documentation and DSS-1682 forms are attached to the product liability claim. Case documentation and DSS-1682 for claims established prior to 1/19/2019 will be scanned into NCFAST and attached to the Product liability case with 100% accuracy. Responsible Parties: Diane Simmons, Program Integrity Supervisor, will be responsible for ensuring the DSS-1682 and all documentation is completed correctly and timely. Diane Simmons will be responsible for completing a second party review of each case pursued to ensure that correct policy is applied and all data entered into NCFAST is correct. Wendy Sanders, Program Integrity Investigator, will be responsible for ensuring the DSS-1682 is completed and signed prior to submitting to the supervisor for second party review and signature. Wendy Sanders will be responsible for ensuring that documentation is completed and attached to the product liability claim for all investigations and established claims. Wendy Sanders will be responsible for ensuring a copy of the documentation is placed in the hard file and saved on Leia/user drive. Wendy Sanders will be responsible for ensuring that documentation and DSS- 1682?s for all claims established prior to 1/19/2019 will be scanned and attached to the product liability claims that were converted into NCFAST. Second party review results will be reviewed with Program Integrity staff monthly. Remedial training will be conducted if any errors are found. Proposed Completion Date: Management and the Board will review this implemented process and make changes as necessary to the above procedure immediately.
2018-004
The County Department of Social Services did not follow control procedures to ensure the proper eligibility determinations were being made and documented. Two samples had deficiencies noted during the second party review but were not corrected within the County?s policy guidelines. Context: Of the 25 samples we tested, two were not tracked by the caseworker or the reviewer and were not corrected timely according to the County?s policy. The County?s policy indicates that deficiencies found in second party reviews are to be corrected within 3 business days. Effect: Casefiles could be missing the required eligibility determination documentation, which would allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Weakness in implementation of controls over second party review procedures. Questioned Cost: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Recommendation: Management should adhere to the County?s policy, and other granting agency?s policies applicable, in performing second party reviews. Evidence of documentation of reviews should be retained and include signatures of all parties involved during the review. Furthermore, if deficiencies are noted during a review, timely follow up and documentation of the correction should take place. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴US Department of Health and Human Services Passed through the NC Dept. of Health and Human Services Program Name: SNAP Cluster CFDA # 10.561 Grant Number: 195NC406S2514 Finding 2019-006 Material Weakness Eligibility Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to properly review and assess the eligibility determination of individuals to ensure the accuracy of the benefits being provided is within program requirements. Management must monitor activities under federal awards to assure compliance with federal requirements. Condition: The County Department of Social Services did not follow control procedures to ensure the proper eligibility determinations were being made and documented. Two samples had deficiencies noted during the second party review but were not corrected within the County?s policy guidelines. Context: Of the 25 samples we tested, two were not tracked by the caseworker or the reviewer and were not corrected timely according to the County?s policy. The County?s policy indicates that deficiencies found in second party reviews are to be corrected within 3 business days. Effect: Casefiles could be missing the required eligibility determination documentation, which would allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Weakness in implementation of controls over second party review procedures. Questioned Cost: The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Recommendation: Management should adhere to the County?s policy, and other granting agency?s policies applicable, in performing second party reviews. Evidence of documentation of reviews should be retained and include signatures of all parties involved during the review. Furthermore, if deficiencies are noted during a review, timely follow up and documentation of the correction should take place. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See Corrective Action Plan submitted with this report.
Finding: 2019-006 Name of Contact Person: Micka Terry Stanton, DSS Director Corrective Action/Management?s Response: Management concurs with the condition, context, and recommendations. Additional trainings will be conducted on eligibility determinations. Training will be conducted on understanding the income guidelines and policy. The lead workers will continue to complete 2nd party review of cases and will check the determinations and income on all participants. All 2nd party review cases in error will be given back to the worker for corrections, which must be corrected and returned to the lead worker for follow up within 3 days. The lead workers will inform the supervisor of errors, which will be discussed at staff meetings and additional trainings as needed. A 2nd party monitoring tool will be provided to lead workers to develop as an aid for completing monthly 2nd party reviews. Proposed Completion date: Management will review this implemented process and make changes as necessary to the above procedure immediately.
FAC accepted this audit on December 18, 2018 — management decision was due June 18, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-012
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on June 20, 2018 — management decision was due December 20, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-012, 2016-013
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-015
FAC accepted this audit on October 30, 2017 — management decision was due April 30, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴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.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in North Carolina →
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.
