EIN: 931012686
UEI: MHM2Y1E65QH3
Audited by: KERN & THOMPSON, LLC
Oversight agency: 93 [Department of Health and Human Services]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 7, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on May 14, 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 November 14, 2026 (66 days from today).
What is a management decision? →Type: Audited Financial Statements Late Filing – Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Controls Over Compliance Criteria / Requirement: The Organization must ensure that financial information is filed by the reporting due dates pursuant to the requirements of its funders and the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. Condition / Context: The Organization did not file the audited financial statement and related reports before their specified due dates. Management did not meet the year-end reporting due dates required by funders and regulations. Cause: The filings were not performed timely, in part, due to the delay in the issuance of the compliance supplement which required the audit to start late. In addition, several funders reported a materially different funding mix on audit confirmation responses than originally documented in the underlying agreements. This caused the major program determination to be significantly delayed while the federal expenditures were confirmed with the funders reconciled to the records. Effect: The year-end audited financial statements were not timely completed and filed by the regulatory due dates. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: The Organization should review the program requirements and implement contingency plans to ensure that year-end reporting requirements are met. The Organization personnel should communicate with funders throughout the year to ensure that the federal programs are properly identified and any changes in funding mix are received and documented contemporaneously. This will allow the Organization to provide timely and accurate information for the annual audit. Management’s Response: Management concurs with the finding and has defined corrective action to address it.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Type: Audited Financial Statements Late Filing – Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Controls Over Compliance Criteria / Requirement: The Organization must ensure that financial information is filed by the reporting due dates pursuant to the requirements of its funders and the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. Condition / Context: The Organization did not file the audited financial statement and related reports before their specified due dates. Management did not meet the year-end reporting due dates required by funders and regulations. Cause: The filings were not performed timely, in part, due to the delay in the issuance of the compliance supplement which required the audit to start late. In addition, several funders reported a materially different funding mix on audit confirmation responses than originally documented in the underlying agreements. This caused the major program determination to be significantly delayed while the federal expenditures were confirmed with the funders reconciled to the records. Effect: The year-end audited financial statements were not timely completed and filed by the regulatory due dates. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: The Organization should review the program requirements and implement contingency plans to ensure that year-end reporting requirements are met. The Organization personnel should communicate with funders throughout the year to ensure that the federal programs are properly identified and any changes in funding mix are received and documented contemporaneously. This will allow the Organization to provide timely and accurate information for the annual audit. Management’s Response: Management concurs with the finding and has defined corrective action to address it.
Findings – Federal Award 2025-002 Finding Audited Financial Statements Late Filing – Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Controls Over Compliance Context: The Organization did not file the audited financial statement and related reports before their specified due dates. Management did not meet the year-end reporting due dates required by funders and regulations. Recommendation: The Organization should review the program requirements and implement contingency plans to ensure that year-end reporting requirements are met. The Organization personnel should communicate with funders throughout the year to ensure that the federal programs are properly identified and any changes in funding mix are received and documented contemporaneously. This will allow the Organization to provide timely and accurate information for the annual audit. Action Taken: As a subrecipient of braided Federal/non-Federal funding, MHAO is wholly reliant on accurate revenue confirmations from our State and County funders. Corrective Action: All contracts are now reviewed by the Finance Director and Senior Financial Analyst for ALN numbers, and stored centrally in the finance drive. Responsible Official: Zach Brooks, Finance Director Planned Completion Date: June 30, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on February 12, 2025 — management decision was due August 12, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2024 — management decision was due September 29, 2024.
For the year ended June 30, 2022, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Cause: For the year ended June 30, 2022, the financial audit was not completed until January 2024. Effect: This is considered to be a significant deficiency in controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The Organization’s financial audit was not completed within the required period and the data collection form was not submitted to the Federal Clearinghouse website within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend implementing a control, such as having 2 people involved in the process, that will ensure that the data collection form is submitted timely. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-001 Data Collection Form Submission Delay Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1), the audit package and the data collection form shall be submitted 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or 9 months after the end of the fiscal year —whichever comes first. Condition: For the year ended June 30, 2022, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Cause: For the year ended June 30, 2022, the financial audit was not completed until January 2024. Effect: This is considered to be a significant deficiency in controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The Organization’s financial audit was not completed within the required period and the data collection form was not submitted to the Federal Clearinghouse website within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend implementing a control, such as having 2 people involved in the process, that will ensure that the data collection form is submitted timely. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
1.) Finding 2023-001 Data Collection Form Submission Delay a. Program Information: N/A b. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1), the audit package and the data collection form shall be submitted 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or 9 months after the end of the fiscal year whichever comes first. c. Condition: For the year ended June 30, 2021, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Response: Explanation: The delay in submitting our annual audited financial statements was due to significant transitions within the MHAAO finance team. In the first half of FY23, we faced the departure of our contract accountant and then Finance Director, leaving substantial parts of the audit work incomplete. With only one staff accountant, we faced challenges in making progress on audit deliverables. After my appointment as the new Finance Director in February 2023, we encountered further delays due to our previous audit partner's scheduling difficulties. This led us to engage with Aldrich Advisors, who committed to completing the FY22 audit for us within the calendar year 2023. Corrective Action: To address the lack of capacity on the MHAAO finance team, we successfully hired three new positions by the beginning of FY24: a Payroll Specialist, Accounts Payable Specialist, and an experienced Accounting Manager. We also recently promoted our Staff Accountant to a Senior Financial Analyst role, in charge of grants, contracts and compliance. We now have a strong and capable team to strengthen our internal financial processes and implement best practices in nonprofit financial management. To address this finding comprehensively, we have also implemented a new policy with two key components: - A centralized tracking system for reporting deadlines, maintained by myself, our Accounting Manager, and our Senior Financial Analyst. - Enhanced communication protocols for required submissions, including immediate communication with our audit team and funding partners in case of potential delays. Future Measures: Integration of these measures into our internal financial management policies and procedures, ensuring consistent application and preventing future delays. Contact person responsible for corrective action: John Domingo, Finance & IT Director Completion date: 10/17/2023
2022-001
During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Cause: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include procedures to ensure that vendors are suspended or debarred. Effect: Not having a procedure in place could result in payments to suspended or debarred entities. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Ensuring that the Organization’s vendors are not suspended or debarred should be part of the expense approval process. Auditors tested a selection of expenses to determine if any of the selected vendors were suspended or debarred. None were identified as suspended or debarred in this testing. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: The Organization should amend the policy to adhere to the stated criteria. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-002 Procurement Policy Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that, for covered transactions, the non-Federal entity verify that entities are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Condition: During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Cause: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include procedures to ensure that vendors are suspended or debarred. Effect: Not having a procedure in place could result in payments to suspended or debarred entities. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Ensuring that the Organization’s vendors are not suspended or debarred should be part of the expense approval process. Auditors tested a selection of expenses to determine if any of the selected vendors were suspended or debarred. None were identified as suspended or debarred in this testing. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: The Organization should amend the policy to adhere to the stated criteria. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
3.) Finding 2023-002 Procurement Policy a. Program Information: N/A b. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that, for covered transactions, the non-Federal entity verify that entities are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. c. Condition: During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Response: Explanation: Our procurement policy, updated in April 2022, lacked specific procedures for verifying that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Debarment attestation is necessary to ensure that federal funds are not misused or directed towards entities that have been found to violate legal or ethical standards. By verifying the status of vendors, a nonprofit can mitigate against the risk of its funds being misappropriated or wasted on entities that may not deliver against agreements due to their questionable legal standing. Corrective Action: We have revised our procurement policy to include specific debarment language and procedures ensuring that vendors are not suspended or debarred. This revision includes: - Regular checks against the list of suspended or debarred entities, showing no active exclusions from the System for Award Management (SAM). - Requiring a signed Debarment Certification Form or debarment contract language included for all government purchases/contracts/agreements greater than $25,000. - Training for our accounts payable and procurement team members on these procedures. Future Measures: We will conduct annual reviews of our procurement practices and records to ensure they remain compliant with our policies, federal regulations, and best practices. Contact person responsible for corrective action: John Domingo, Finance & IT Director Completion date: 07/01/2023
2022-003
FAC accepted this audit on February 13, 2024 — management decision was due August 13, 2024.
For the year ended June 30, 2021, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Cause: For the year ended June 30, 2021, the financial audit was not completed until September 2022. Effect: This is considered to be a significant deficiency in controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The Organization’s financial audit was not completed within the required period and the data collection form was not submitted to the Federal Clearinghouse website within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend implementing a control, such as having 2 people involved in the process, that will ensure that the data collection form is submitted timely. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-001 Data Collection Form Submission Delay Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1), the audit package and the data collection form shall be submitted 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or 9 months after the end of the fiscal year —whichever comes first. Condition: For the year ended June 30, 2021, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Cause: For the year ended June 30, 2021, the financial audit was not completed until September 2022. Effect: This is considered to be a significant deficiency in controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The Organization’s financial audit was not completed within the required period and the data collection form was not submitted to the Federal Clearinghouse website within 9 months after the end of the fiscal year. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend implementing a control, such as having 2 people involved in the process, that will ensure that the data collection form is submitted timely. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
1.) Finding 2022-001 Data Collection Form Submission Delay a. Program Information: N/A b. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.512(a)(1), the audit package and the data collection form shall be submitted 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or 9 months after the end of the fiscal year whichever comes first. c. Condition: For the year ended June 30, 2021, the audit package and data collection form was not submitted within the required timeline. Response: Explanation: The delay in submitting our annual audited financial statements was due to significant transitions within the MHAAO finance team. In the first half of FY23, we faced the departure of our contract accountant and then Finance Director, leaving substantial parts of the audit work incomplete. With only one staff accountant, we faced challenges in making progress on audit deliverables. After my appointment as the new Finance Director in February 2023, we encountered further delays due to our previous audit partner's scheduling difficulties. This led us to engage with Aldrich Advisors, who committed to completing the FY22 audit for us within the calendar year 2023. Corrective Action: To address the lack of capacity on the MHAAO finance team, we successfully hired three new positions by the beginning of FY24: a Payroll Specialist, Accounts Payable Specialist, and an experienced Accounting Manager. We also recently promoted our Staff Accountant to a Senior Financial Analyst role, in charge of grants, contracts and compliance. We now have a strong and capable team to strengthen our internal financial processes and implement best practices in nonprofit financial management. To address this finding comprehensively, we have also implemented a new policy with two key components: - A centralized tracking system for reporting deadlines, maintained by myself, our Accounting Manager, and our Senior Financial Analyst. - Enhanced communication protocols for required submissions, including immediate communication with our audit team and funding partners in case of potential delays. Future Measures: Integration of these measures into our internal financial management policies and procedures, ensuring consistent application and preventing future delays. Contact person responsible for corrective action: John Domingo, Finance & IT Director Completion date: 10/17/2023
During our audit, we identified one quarterly financial report that was submitted to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) after the stated due date. Cause: During the reporting period, the Organization’s management was not aware that a user application was needed to be submitted and approved in order to gain access to the Payment Management System (PMS). The delay in obtaining PMS access caused management’s delay in submitting the required quarterly financial report. Effect: Report was not submitted to the COR in a timely manner and a request for extension of the due date was not made. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The report was due to the COR within 45 days of the reporting period end and was submitted one day after the stated due date. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: When timely submission may not be possible, the Organization should request an extension from the COR by providing a notice of the delay and rationale for the late report, and, if approved, submit the report by the extended deadline. When extensions are not granted, the Organization should submit reports by the initial stated due date. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-002 Report Submission Delay Program: 17.270 Reentry Employment Opportunities Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, non-Federal entities must submit quarterly financial reports at the interval required by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity no later than the specified due date. If a justified request is submitted by a non-Federal entity, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any quarterly financial report. Condition: During our audit, we identified one quarterly financial report that was submitted to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) after the stated due date. Cause: During the reporting period, the Organization’s management was not aware that a user application was needed to be submitted and approved in order to gain access to the Payment Management System (PMS). The delay in obtaining PMS access caused management’s delay in submitting the required quarterly financial report. Effect: Report was not submitted to the COR in a timely manner and a request for extension of the due date was not made. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: The report was due to the COR within 45 days of the reporting period end and was submitted one day after the stated due date. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: When timely submission may not be possible, the Organization should request an extension from the COR by providing a notice of the delay and rationale for the late report, and, if approved, submit the report by the extended deadline. When extensions are not granted, the Organization should submit reports by the initial stated due date. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
2.) Finding 2020-002 Report Submission Delay a. Program Information: 17.270 Reentry Employment Opportunities b. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.329, non-Federal entities must submit quarterly financial reports at the interval required by the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity no later than the specified due date. If a justified request is submitted by a non-Federal entity, the Federal agency may extend the due date for any quarterly financial report. c. Condition: During our audit, we identified one quarterly financial report that was submitted to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) after the stated due date. Response: Explanation: This delay was due to an unawareness of process limitations regarding the user application process for the Payment Management System (PMS), which is required for any new Finance Director. A formal application and access request form needs to be submitted along with documentation to support the request for access (including proof of identity, proof of employment, and role confirmation). These conditions, along with the 24-72 hour processing time required to get a user application approved by the PMS providers, led to our one-day-late submission of the required quarterly financial report. Corrective Action: We have established a more proactive approach to managing reporting requirements and a protocol for timely submissions of reports. This includes: - Mandatory PMS application processing as part of the early onboarding process for any new Finance Director. - Early preparation of reports, scheduling reviews a month ahead of the submission deadline. - Direct communication lines with the contract administrators and program directors. - Standard procedures identified to request extensions in case of anticipated delays, specific to each contracting agency. Future Measures: Regular training session for our team are planned to help staff stay informed about reporting requirements, procedures, and deadlines. Contact person responsible for corrective action: John Domingo, Finance & IT Director Compleion date: 07/01/2023
During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Cause: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include procedures to ensure that vendors are suspended or debarred. Effect: Not having a procedure in place could result in payments to suspended or debarred entities. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Ensuring that the Organization’s vendors are not suspended or debarred should be part of the expense approval process. Auditors tested a selection of expenses to determine if any of the selected vendors were suspended or debarred. None were identified as suspended or debarred in this testing. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: The Organization should amend the policy to adhere to the stated criteria. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-003 Procurement Policy Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that, for covered transactions, the non-Federal entity verify that entities are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Condition: During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Cause: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include procedures to ensure that vendors are suspended or debarred. Effect: Not having a procedure in place could result in payments to suspended or debarred entities. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Ensuring that the Organization’s vendors are not suspended or debarred should be part of the expense approval process. Auditors tested a selection of expenses to determine if any of the selected vendors were suspended or debarred. None were identified as suspended or debarred in this testing. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: The Organization should amend the policy to adhere to the stated criteria. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and a response is included in the corrective action plan.
3.) Finding 2020-003 Procurement Policy a. Program Information: N/A b. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that, for covered transactions, the non-Federal entity verify that entities are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. c. Condition: During our audit, we inquired with management regarding their procurement policy that was implemented in April 2022. While policy exists, there were no specific procedures noted in the procurement policy to ensure that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Response: Explanation: Our procurement policy, updated in April 2022, lacked specific procedures for verifying that vendors are not suspended or debarred. Debarment attestation is necessary to ensure that federal funds are not misused or directed towards entities that have been found to violate legal or ethical standards. By verifying the status of vendors, a nonprofit can mitigate against the risk of its funds being misappropriated or wasted on entities that may not deliver against agreements due to their questionable legal standing. Corrective Action: We have revised our procurement policy to include specific debarment language and procedures ensuring that vendors are not suspended or debarred. This revision includes: - Regular checks against the list of suspended or debarred entities, showing no active exclusions from the System for Award Management (SAM). - Requiring a signed Debarment Certification Form or debarment contract language included for all government purchases/contracts/agreements greater than $25,000. - Training for our accounts payable and procurement team members on these procedures. Future Measures: We will conduct annual reviews of our procurement practices and records to ensure they remain compliant with our policies, federal regulations, and best practices. Contact person responsible for corrective action: John Domingo, Finance & IT Director Completion date: 05/18/2023
FAC accepted this audit on September 29, 2022 — management decision was due March 29, 2023.
Expenditures for personnel costs were not properly allocated to programs. 93.959: nineteen of the nineteen payroll related expenditures tested in our statistically valid sample did not allocate personnel costs based on the wages of the individual charged to the program. Instead, the average wages for all employees were used to allocate payroll related costs. In addition, one of the nineteen payroll related expenditures was charged to the program for an employee who did not work within the program. 17.270: thirteen of the thirteen payroll related expenditures tested in our statistically valid sample did not allocate personnel costs based on the wages of the individual charged to the program. Instead, the average wages for all employees were used to allocate payroll related costs. Context: Expenditures should be charged to the proper programs and allocated in accordance with requirements. Questioned Costs: 93.959: The allocation errors were immaterial and did not accumulate to the reportable questioned cost threshold of $25,000. 17.270: None. The allocation errors resulted in a net undercharge to the program. Cause: Lack of understanding of the allocation requirements for payroll related costs resulted in costs being incorrectly allocated between programs. Effect: Expenses were charged to the incorrect programs. Recommendation: We recommend management implement procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to Federal awards are in accordance with relevant requirements. Views of responsible official: Management concurs with the audit findings.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2021-001 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program: Block Grants for Treatment and Prevention of Substance Abuse AL Number: 93.959 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program: Reentry Employment Opportunities AL Number: 17.270 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Allowable Costs. Criteria: The payroll expenses charged to the program were not properly supported in accordance with regulations. According to section 2 CFR 200.430 (17.270) and the Oregon Accounting Manual 1010.114 and 1015.117 (93.959), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that support the distribution of the employees? wages among activities or cost centers. Condition: Expenditures for personnel costs were not properly allocated to programs. 93.959: nineteen of the nineteen payroll related expenditures tested in our statistically valid sample did not allocate personnel costs based on the wages of the individual charged to the program. Instead, the average wages for all employees were used to allocate payroll related costs. In addition, one of the nineteen payroll related expenditures was charged to the program for an employee who did not work within the program. 17.270: thirteen of the thirteen payroll related expenditures tested in our statistically valid sample did not allocate personnel costs based on the wages of the individual charged to the program. Instead, the average wages for all employees were used to allocate payroll related costs. Context: Expenditures should be charged to the proper programs and allocated in accordance with requirements. Questioned Costs: 93.959: The allocation errors were immaterial and did not accumulate to the reportable questioned cost threshold of $25,000. 17.270: None. The allocation errors resulted in a net undercharge to the program. Cause: Lack of understanding of the allocation requirements for payroll related costs resulted in costs being incorrectly allocated between programs. Effect: Expenses were charged to the incorrect programs. Recommendation: We recommend management implement procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to Federal awards are in accordance with relevant requirements. Views of responsible official: Management concurs with the audit findings.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2021-001 Block Grants for Treatment and Prevention of Substance Abuse - Assistance listing 93.959 Reentry Employment Opportunities - Assistance listing 17.270 Recommendation: We recommend management implement procedures to ensure that payroll costs charged to Federal awards are in accordance with relevant requirements. Explanation of disagreement with audit findings: there is no disagreement with the audit findings. Action taken in response to finding: The issue was recognized by management shortly after the close of the fiscal year. Steps were taken to create and implement an Allocation report for each employee by direct hours worked and gross pay. It is hoped this will alleviate the problem of staff being billed at a blended rate and instead be billed at a direct wage rate. Action Plan: In addition to implementing the revised allocation report and entry, additional scrutiny has been implemented. One person enters the Payroll Allocation report and another person reviews the allocations. Name(s) of the contact people responsible for correction action: Saraah Carson, Fiscal Director MHAAO Plan completion date for corrective action plan: September 30, 2022
FAC accepted this audit on June 3, 2020 — management decision was due December 3, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on June 27, 2019 — management decision was due December 27, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on June 28, 2018 — management decision was due December 28, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on June 28, 2017 — management decision was due December 28, 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.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in Oregon →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Add it to a monitored group and get alerted when a new audit, finding, repeat finding, or management-decision deadline shows up — instead of checking back.
Checking several at once? Portfolio view →
© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
