EIN: 566001834
UEI: KN9DH9KW55L4
Data as of August 26, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on November 8, 2024. 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 May 8, 2025 (476 days ago).
What is a management decision? →The District did not expend any funds from the State Public School Fund for School Nutrition Supervisors. Effect: The Board is not in compliance with the Child Nutrition Cluster matching requirements. Cause: Oversight. Identification of a repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding from the previous audit. Questioned Cost: $45,000 Recommendation: Management should ensure a minimum of $45,000 is expended from the State Public School Fund for School Nutrition Supervisors. Management Response: The Board agrees with this finding and recommendation.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Child Nutrition grants require a State match for School Nutrition Supervisors. The district is required to expend at least $45,000 out of the State Public School Fund for School Nutrition Supervisors. Condition: The District did not expend any funds from the State Public School Fund for School Nutrition Supervisors. Effect: The Board is not in compliance with the Child Nutrition Cluster matching requirements. Cause: Oversight. Identification of a repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding from the previous audit. Questioned Cost: $45,000 Recommendation: Management should ensure a minimum of $45,000 is expended from the State Public School Fund for School Nutrition Supervisors. Management Response: The Board agrees with this finding and recommendation.
Management will take the steps necessary to ensure matching requirements are met.
FAC accepted this audit on March 25, 2024 — management decision was due September 25, 2024.
The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(3) requires that program costs must be paid by non-federal entity funds before submitting a payment request for reimbursement. Based on testing performed over cash management, we noted that for the first nine months of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, management requested funds for an amount that was different and often more than actual expenditures for the given month. Specifically, during November 2021, the grant team noted that the budgeted fringe rates differed from actuals. This was brought to the attention of the finance department who was unable to explain the discrepancy. Rather than requesting reimbursement based on actual expenditures, the team kept track of the discrepancy and requested reimbursement based on the budgeted amounts. Upon investigating further, it was deemed that the difference was due to the grant team miscalculating the fringe benefit due to pre-tax contributions, and therefore, the Organization requested reimbursement for an amount more than what was actually expended. Management corrected the issue beginning in March 2023, and made a correction on their November 2023 draw in the amount of $4,446.75. In addition, auditor noted differences of $3,425.55, between the balance approved on the February 2023 drawdown and the total amount requested and ultimately transferred. Auditor notes that there were indirect costs of $3,425.55 for the month of February 2023 that inadvertently did not get paid and post until March 2023, therefore they were requested for reimbursement in March 2023. As the February 2023 drawdown was based on budgeted and not actual, the drawdown included these same indirect costs as well. Management identified the issue and performed an analysis over indirect costs that were not getting posted correctly during year 2 of the grant. Management noted two other months in which the same issue occurred which was in January 2023 and December 2022, however for these months, the indirect costs did not get requested for reimbursement at all, resulting in an understatement of expenditures. Management made a correction for these on their November 2023 draw in the amount of $76,950.97. Although program management has controls in place for the grant analyst to perform a reconciliation between the budgeted amounts and actual expenditures each month prior to requesting for reimbursement, discrepancies noted are not fully investigated prior to requesting funds for reimbursement. In addition, the error related to unintentionally miscalculating fringe benefits occurred during the period of time when the Organization’s CFO had resigned. Once a new CFO was in place, the error was identified and resolved. The error related to indirect costs resulted from issues within the payroll system where retirement and other costs were not posting until the following month. Without adequate controls in place to ensure that discrepancies between budget to actual expenditures are being fully investigated and resolved prior to requests for reimbursements being made, noncompliance with cash management requirements could occur and not be detected by management. Management should strengthen the Organization’s internal controls to ensure that program staff are timely investigating and resolving all differences noted in the monthly reconciliations between budget and actual expenditures and only requesting reimbursement for those costs that have been expended during the month.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(3) requires that program costs must be paid by non-federal entity funds before submitting a payment request for reimbursement. Based on testing performed over cash management, we noted that for the first nine months of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, management requested funds for an amount that was different and often more than actual expenditures for the given month. Specifically, during November 2021, the grant team noted that the budgeted fringe rates differed from actuals. This was brought to the attention of the finance department who was unable to explain the discrepancy. Rather than requesting reimbursement based on actual expenditures, the team kept track of the discrepancy and requested reimbursement based on the budgeted amounts. Upon investigating further, it was deemed that the difference was due to the grant team miscalculating the fringe benefit due to pre-tax contributions, and therefore, the Organization requested reimbursement for an amount more than what was actually expended. Management corrected the issue beginning in March 2023, and made a correction on their November 2023 draw in the amount of $4,446.75. In addition, auditor noted differences of $3,425.55, between the balance approved on the February 2023 drawdown and the total amount requested and ultimately transferred. Auditor notes that there were indirect costs of $3,425.55 for the month of February 2023 that inadvertently did not get paid and post until March 2023, therefore they were requested for reimbursement in March 2023. As the February 2023 drawdown was based on budgeted and not actual, the drawdown included these same indirect costs as well. Management identified the issue and performed an analysis over indirect costs that were not getting posted correctly during year 2 of the grant. Management noted two other months in which the same issue occurred which was in January 2023 and December 2022, however for these months, the indirect costs did not get requested for reimbursement at all, resulting in an understatement of expenditures. Management made a correction for these on their November 2023 draw in the amount of $76,950.97. Although program management has controls in place for the grant analyst to perform a reconciliation between the budgeted amounts and actual expenditures each month prior to requesting for reimbursement, discrepancies noted are not fully investigated prior to requesting funds for reimbursement. In addition, the error related to unintentionally miscalculating fringe benefits occurred during the period of time when the Organization’s CFO had resigned. Once a new CFO was in place, the error was identified and resolved. The error related to indirect costs resulted from issues within the payroll system where retirement and other costs were not posting until the following month. Without adequate controls in place to ensure that discrepancies between budget to actual expenditures are being fully investigated and resolved prior to requests for reimbursements being made, noncompliance with cash management requirements could occur and not be detected by management. Management should strengthen the Organization’s internal controls to ensure that program staff are timely investigating and resolving all differences noted in the monthly reconciliations between budget and actual expenditures and only requesting reimbursement for those costs that have been expended during the month.
As noted in the last fiscal year audit, we incurred the same finding. Immediately after the auditors helped bring the finding to our knowledge, we began procedures to fix and prevent from re-occurring. We began to draw down the actual expenses instead of our budgeted expenses. Our TSL Technical Assistance vendor reconciled all of our incorrect drawdowns and created one final lump sum drawdown to appropriately balance the G5 account. We have since worked closely each month with our RSS payroll department to ensure monthly expenses are correct. If they are incorrect, we make sure they are fixed and accounted for all within the same month.
2022-001
FAC accepted this audit on March 26, 2023 — management decision was due September 26, 2023.
Based on testing performed over cash management, we noted that for all twelve months during the year, management requested funds for an amount that was different and often more than actual expenditures for the given month. Specifically, during November 2021, the grant team noted that the budgeted fringe rates differed from actuals. This was brought to the attention of the finance department who was unable to explain the discrepancy. Rather than requesting reimbursement based on actual expenditures, the team kept track of the discrepancy and requested reimbursement based on the budgeted amounts. Upon investigating further, it was deemed that the difference was due to the grant team miscalculating the fringe benefit due to pre-tax contributions, and therefore, the Organization requested reimbursement for an amount more than what was actually expended.Cause: Although program management has controls in place for the grant analyst to perform a reconciliation between the budgeted amounts and actual expenditures each month prior to requesting for reimbursement, discrepancies noted are not fully investigated prior to requesting funds for reimbursement. In addition, the error occurred during the period of time when the Organization?s CFO had resigned. Once a new CFO was in place, the error was identified and resolved.Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure that discrepancies between budget to actual expenditures are being fully investigated and resolved prior to requests for reimbursements being made, non-compliance with cash management requirements could occur and not be detected by management.Questioned Costs ? Known: $7,793.78Related Noncompliance ? NoncomplianceRecommendation: Management should strengthen the Organization?s internal controls to ensure that program staff are timely investigating and resolving all differences noted in the monthly reconciliation and only requesting reimbursement for those costs that have been expended during the month.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCYFinding Number: 2022-001Prior Year Finding Number: N/ACompliance Requirement: Cash ManagementProgram: Teacher and School Leader Incentive ProgramFederal Assistance Listing Number: 84.374AAward #: S374A200044Award Year: 7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022Governing Department/Agency: United States Department of EducationCriteria: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR section 200.305(b)(3) requires that program costs must be paid by non-federal entity funds before submitting a payment request for reimbursement.Condition: Based on testing performed over cash management, we noted that for all twelve months during the year, management requested funds for an amount that was different and often more than actual expenditures for the given month. Specifically, during November 2021, the grant team noted that the budgeted fringe rates differed from actuals. This was brought to the attention of the finance department who was unable to explain the discrepancy. Rather than requesting reimbursement based on actual expenditures, the team kept track of the discrepancy and requested reimbursement based on the budgeted amounts. Upon investigating further, it was deemed that the difference was due to the grant team miscalculating the fringe benefit due to pre-tax contributions, and therefore, the Organization requested reimbursement for an amount more than what was actually expended.Cause: Although program management has controls in place for the grant analyst to perform a reconciliation between the budgeted amounts and actual expenditures each month prior to requesting for reimbursement, discrepancies noted are not fully investigated prior to requesting funds for reimbursement. In addition, the error occurred during the period of time when the Organization?s CFO had resigned. Once a new CFO was in place, the error was identified and resolved.Effect: Without adequate controls in place to ensure that discrepancies between budget to actual expenditures are being fully investigated and resolved prior to requests for reimbursements being made, non-compliance with cash management requirements could occur and not be detected by management.Questioned Costs ? Known: $7,793.78Related Noncompliance ? NoncomplianceRecommendation: Management should strengthen the Organization?s internal controls to ensure that program staff are timely investigating and resolving all differences noted in the monthly reconciliation and only requesting reimbursement for those costs that have been expended during the month.
Management Response / Corrective Action: Rowan-Salisbury School hired a new payroll director in May of 2022 who identified the cause for the above noted discrepancy, noting the team was overbudgeting taxes on staff personnel payments due to employees who opt in for the ?pre-tax contributions.? When an employee enrolls in the ?pre-tax contributions,? the budgeted amount for Social Security/Medicaid is adjusted so that the rate no longer meets the 7.65% calculated amounts for all employees. As a result, the team has gone through each month?s drawdown and determined that $7,793.78 was over budgeted and we are correcting that in our February 2023 drawdown by reducing the drawdown by $7,793.78. We have also adjusted our budget calculation so that we are properly accounting for those employees who opted for ?pre-tax contributions? going forward.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and compliance status.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.