Women's Center, Inc.Non-Profit

Condition - During the current year, the Organization submitted one of their draw requests to one of its funding agencies past the required deadline, which changed from 45 days to 30 days. Per the grant agreement, any requests submitted beyond this timeframe can be denied for reimbursement at the discretion of the granting agency. Criteria - Based on the standards of documentation of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), denied reimbursement requests due to timing requirements can be considered both as an unallowed cost and falling outside of the period of performance. Effect - The Organization was out of compliance with the required submission timeframe designated by the grant agreement. This could have led to a denial of reimbursement of funds to the Organization; however, the funding agency paid the funds without further incident. Cause - A change in the timeframe for required draw request submissions and a misunderstanding with the granting agency led to one of the draw requests being submitted past the required deadline. Questioned Costs - No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation - We recommend that all primary accounting procedures be further developed and documented, and cross-training be provided where applicable. This is especially crucial for month-end and year-end procedures. Better documentation of procedures should reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and other accounting errors resulting from employee turnover or prolonged absences. Management's Response - The late draw request was in the first month following the change from 45 days to 30 days for submission. There was a misunderstanding by the Organization that the new timeframe was to be effective at the new grant period in October rather than effective immediately.

Condition: During the current year, the Organization submitted some of their draw requests to one of its funding agencies past the 45-day requirement. Per the grant agreement, any requests submitted beyond this timeframe can be denied for reimbursement at the discretion of the granting agency. Criteria: Based on the standards of documentation of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), denied reimbursement requests due to timing requirements can be considered both as an unallowed cost and falling outside of the period of performance. Effect: The Organization was out of compliance with the required submission timeframe designated by the grant agreement. This could have led to a denial of reimbursement of funds to the Organization; however, the funding agency paid the funds without further incident. Cause: The combination of a new Finance Director during the year, who submits the draw requests, and no formalized procedures in place for the submission process caused the Organization to be out of compliance on their draw requests. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend that all primary accounting procedures be further developed and documented, and cross-training be provided where applicable. This is especially crucial for month-end and year-end procedures. Better documentation of procedures should reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and other accounting errors resulting from employee turnover or prolonged absences.

Condition: Based on the controls in place as described by staff of the organization, there were multiple instances of invoices and timesheets that did not contain evidence of approvals. Criteria: Monitoring and reporting program performance, as prescribed by 2 CFR section 200.329, requires all requests for reimbursement and reports to be evidenced by formal review and approval processes. Effect: By not having proper review and approvals in place, inaccurate information could have been submitted to the funding agency. In addition, the funding agency could have rejected reimbursement requests and found the Organization to be out of compliance. Cause: There is inconsistent documentation of approvals on invoices and timesheets. In addition, there is no formalized procedure in place on reviewing and submitting the required reports to the funding agency. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization further develop their policies and procedures related to federal awards to ensure compliance with the grant contracts and ensure there is proper review and documented approval.

Condition: During the current year, the Organization submitted several of their draw requests to one of its funding agencies past the 45-day requirement. Per the grant agreement, any requests submitted beyond this timeframe can be denied for reimbursement at the discretion of the granting agency. Criteria: Based on the standards of documentation of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), denied reimbursement requests due to timing requirements can be considered both as an unallowed cost and falling outside of the period of performance. Effect: The Organization was out of compliance with the required submission timeframe designated by the grant agreement. This could have led to a denial of reimbursement of funds to the Organization; however, the funding agency paid the funds without further incident. Cause: The combination of a new Finance Director during the year, who submits the draw requests, and no formalized procedures in place for the submission process caused the Organization to fall behind on their draw requests. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend that all primary accounting procedures be further developed and documented, and cross-training be provided where applicable. This is especially crucial for month-end and year-end procedures. Better documentation of procedures should reduce the likelihood of noncompliance and other accounting errors resulting from employee turnover or prolonged absences.

Condition: The required quarterly financial reports submitted to the funding agency had no evidence of review or approval. In addition, there was no documented approval of the support for the matching requirements. Finally, there were multiple instances of timesheets that did not contain evidence of supervisor approvals. Criteria: All financial reports shall be submitted on mandatory forms supplied by and in the format prescribed by the funding agency. Furthermore, monitoring and reporting program performance, as prescribed by 2 CFR section 200.329, requires all requests for reimbursement and reports to be evidenced by formal review and approval processes. Effect: By not having proper review and approvals in place, inaccurate information could have been submitted to the funding agency. In addition, the funding agency could have rejected the reports or reimbursement requests and found the Organization to be out of compliance. Cause: There is inconsistent documentation of approvals on timesheets. In addition, there is no formalized procedure in place on reviewing and submitting the required reports to the funding agency. Questioned Costs: No known questioned costs were identified during the course of the audit. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization further develop their policies and procedures related to federal awards to ensure compliance with the grant contracts and ensure there is proper review and documented approval.

Program Information: U.S. Department of Justice: Passed through Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) ? CFDA #16.575 Award Number: 2017-VA-GX-0056/VC040800 Award Periods: 07/01/2019-06/30/2020 Criteria: All Financial reports, shall be submitted on mandatory forms supplied by Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance (ICDVVA) and in the format prescribed by ICDVVA. Monitoring and reporting program performance, 2 CFR section 200.328. Condition/Context: Per review of the ICDVVA quarterly financial reports used to track matching requirements, two out of two reports reviewed were not properly approved. The Finance Director prepared the report and also reviewed and approved it. [ ] Compliance Finding [ X ] Significant Deficiency [ ] Material Weakness Cause: There was inconsistent documentation of approvals along with support of proper approval not being present. Effect: By not having proper approvals in place, the financial reports could be inaccurate and not properly reflect the financial progress of the major program. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization follow their policies and procedures and ensure that someone other than the preparer review and approve reports. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared corrective action as detailed in its Corrective Action Plan.

Program Information: U.S. Department of Justice: Passed through Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Crime Victim Assistance (VOCA) ? CFDA #16.575 Award Number: 2017-VA-GX-0056/VC040800 Award Periods: 07/01/2019-06/30/2020 Criteria: All Financial reports, shall be submitted on mandatory forms supplied by Idaho Council on Domestic Violence and Victim Assistance (ICDVVA) and in the format prescribed by ICDVVA. Monitoring and reporting program performance, 2 CFR section 200.328. Condition/Context: Per review of the ICDVVA quarterly financial reports, the report was not properly approved. The Finance Director prepared the report and also reviewed and approved it. [ ] Compliance Finding [ X ] Significant Deficiency [ ] Material Weakness Cause: There was inconsistent documentation of approvals along with support of proper approval not being present. Effect: Without the proper reviews taking place inaccurate information could have been submitted to the funding agency, additionally with the form not being authorized the funding agency could have rejected the report and considered them out of compliance. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization follow their policies and procedures and ensure that someone other than the preparer review and approve reports. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared corrective action as detailed in its Corrective Action Plan.