University of Mobile, Inc.Higher Education

Condition: There was an incorrect cost of attendance amount used to calculate a parent PLUS loan for 1 out 40 students tested. Criteria: According to the U.S. Department of Education, an institution must use cost of attendance minus other financial aid received to calculate the amount of PLUS loans that students are eligible to receive. Cause: The University utilizes a paper worksheet to manually calculate a student’s eligibility for PLUS loans. Due to a manual entry error, the cost of attendance was recorded as $1,000 less than the correct amount. As a result, the student was eligible to borrow more funds than initially indicated. Effect: As a result of the manual calculation error on the loan worksheet, the student was informed of a lower borrowing limit than they were actually eligible for. This discrepancy contributed to the student receiving less financial aid than anticipated. Additionally, the error highlights a risk in the manual calculation process, which could result in similar miscalculations for other students if not addressed. Context: The University determines PLUS loan eligibility using a manually prepared worksheet rather than an automated system calculation. Financial aid staff record the cost of attendance and other aid amounts on this form to compute the eligible PLUS loan amount. During audit testing, it was noted that an error occurred in recording the cost of attendance, resulting in an incorrect calculation of the student’s PLUS loan eligibility. Recommendation: The University should implement controls to prevent, or detect and correct, manual calculation errors in determining PLUS loan eligibility. This may include transitioning to an automated system-based calculation, improving the secondary review process for all manually prepared worksheets, or incorporating validation checks for key data. Implementing these controls will help ensure accuracy in loan determinations and compliance with federal awarding requirements. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Thank you for the opportunity to report on enhancements the University has made to resource our students and maintain the highest standards of accounting. While we are pleased that the audit indicated significant progress, the following are additional steps we are taking to ensure even greater accuracy and compliance: 1. An improved review process for all manually calculated loan worksheets to verify the accuracy of key inputs, including the cost of attendance and other aid amounts and 2. The University is also exploring options to automate the loan calculation process within its financial aid management system to reduce the risk of manual errors.

Condition: A student added an additional course after the summer term census date, however, the Financial Aid Office did not adjust the student’s corresponding Pell Grant eligibility. As a result, the Pell Grant award was not recalculated to include the additional course. Criteria: The University’s monitoring controls for post-census date enrollment changes were not consistently applied. Although the University’s normal process includes reviewing and adjusting aid when students add/drop classes after the census date, this case was not identified due to human oversight for post-census date schedule changes. Cause: Per 34 CFR 690.80(b)(2)(ii), the University must adjust Federal Pell Grant awards if a student’s enrollment status changes and the change occurs within the University’s established recalculation (census) policies. Additionally, internal University policy states that Pell Grant awards will be adjusted when students add/drop courses after the census date if those courses are applicable toward the student’s degree or certificate requirements and occur within the eligible recalculation period. Effect: Because the student’s enrollment increase was not identified and processed, the student did not receive the full amount of Pell Grant awards they were entitled to. This resulted in a $924 underpayment to the student. Context: This issue was identified during audit testing of Pell Grant awards for the 2024–2025 year. The University reviewed the case and agreed that the student should have received an additional $924. The University believes the error to be an isolated incident rather than a systemic process failure; however, it indicates that post-census monitoring controls may not be fully effective in all cases. Recommendation: The University should establish a formal process to monitor when students add/drop courses after the term census date to ensure financial aid is accurately adjusted and reflected in a timely manner. This process should include periodic reviews or automated reports that identify enrollment changes impacting grant eligibility and additional procedures to verify that corresponding adjustments are made to student accounts. Strengthening this process will help ensure compliance with federal regulations and prevent underpayments or overpayments of student aid. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The University has recognized the failure to adjust the student's enrollment status and recalculate the Pell Grant award in a timely manner that resulted in an underpayment of $924. To prevent similar issues in the future, the Financial Aid Office will implement a formal process to monitor students who add/drop courses after the census date, including generating reports to flag enrollment changes that impact Pell Grant eligibility and reviewing these cases to ensure adjustments are made promptly.

2024-001 Federal Direct Student Loans, ALN 84.268 Condition: There were incorrect cost of attendance amounts used to calculate subsidized loans for 5 out 40 students tested. Criteria: According to the U.S. Department of Education, an institution must use cost of attendance minus expected family contribution and other financial aid to calculate the amount of subsidized loans that students are eligible to receive. Cause: The University’s student information system (SIS) uses rules to determine which budget components should be assigned to students' cost of attendance based on housing choice, program of student, and classification. It was determined early in the packaging process that some of those budget components were being assigned incorrectly. A support ticket was opened with SIS helpdesk and the issue was corrected within 48 hours. Once the SIS was corrected to assign budget components according to the rules for each budget, all students were reassigned budgets to reflect the correct amounts. Effect: Subsidized loans could have been improperly calculated at the time of packaging, but prior to applying these funds to student charges, there are student eligibility criteria (SEC) rules in place that prevents aid from transmitting if the student is not entitled. In addition, staff weekly run reports to review cost of attendance and subsidized/unsubsidized eligibility. Context: During the compliance audit testing of federal direct student loans, it was determined that the incorrect cost of attendance total was used on the student loan worksheet to calculate eligibility for 5 out of 40 students tested, but SIS reflected the updated correct cost of attendance. Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to monitor the system for future issues and consider updating the supporting documentation as appropriate in the future. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management has corrected the SIS. In reviewing the students affected, it was determined the calculated subsidized loan amounts were still appropriate even though the student loan worksheet did not match the cost of attendance reflected in the SIS.

2021-001 Federal Pell Grant, Federal Direct Student Loans ? Federal Student Financial Aid Cluster, CFDA #84.063 and #84.268 Compliance Requirement: Special Tests ? Enrollment Reporting Criteria: Institutions are required to report enrollment information under the Pell grant and the Direct and FFEL loan programs via the National Student Loan Data System (the NSLDS) (OMB No. 1845-0035). The administration of the Title IV programs depends heavily on the accuracy and timeliness of the enrollment information reported by institutions. Institutions must review, update, and verify student enrollment statuses, program information, and effective dates that appear on the Enrollment Reporting Roster file or on the Enrollment Maintenance page of the NSLDS Professional Access (NSLDSFAP) website, which the financial aid administrator can access. There are two categories of enrollment information, ?Campus-Level? and ?Program-Level?, both of which need to be reported accurately and have separate record types. Institutions are responsible for accurately reporting the following significant data elements under the Campus-Level Record that ED considers high risk: OPEID Number, Enrollment Effective Date, Enrollment Status, and Certification Date. Institutions are responsible for accurately reporting the following significant data elements under the Program-Level Record that ED considers high risk: OPEID, CIP Code, CIP Year, Credential Level, Published Program Length Measurement, Published Program Length, Program Begin Date, Program Enrollment Status, and Program Enrollment Effective Date. Condition: Significant data elements (enrollment status and enrollment effective date) under the Campus-Level Record were not accurately reported to NSLDS in a timely manner. Cause: The University?s controls over detecting and reporting student status changes to the National Clearinghouse did not properly identify a technical issue which resulted in 88 students not being reported as graduated as of December 5, 2020, 63 of which received federal aid. Effect or Potential Effect: Changes in enrollment status and enrollment effective date for 88 students was not reported timely and accurately to NSLDS. Recommendation: The University should enhance its controls over the accuracy of submissions of student status changes by implementing procedures to review submission results to ensure that status changes are accurately communicated to the Department of Education. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Actions: The University concurs with this finding. Refer to the University?s corrective action plan.

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION