EIN: 942519965
UEI: N3AUSJHMTN48
Audited by: RICHARDSON & COMPANY, LLP
Oversight agency: 20 [Department of Transportation]
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 January 11, 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 July 11, 2024 (781 days ago).
What is a management decision? →The SEFA prepared by management included an incorrect Assistance Listing (AL) number for one grant. Federal grant AL No. 20.513 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities was incorrectly identified as AL No. 20.507 Mobility Management. While both grants are from the Federal Transit Agency, they fall under different clusters in the Office of Management and Budget’s Compliance Supplement and thus have different audit requirements. Cause: Paratransit’s internal controls over the completeness of the SEFA were not operating effectively. Effect: The grant in question was initially identified as a major grant and certain audit procedures were applied. The revision of the AL number resulted in this grant being considered non-major, thus not required to be tested. Recommendation: We recommend management verify with the grantor the AL number of the grant. This can be done by obtaining this information from grant documents, or direct communication with the grantor. We further recommend the SEFA be reviewed for accuracy by an individual not included in the SEFA preparation process. Review should be notated with initials and date. Management’s Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2023-001: SEFA – Material Weakness Criteria: U.S. Code § 200.508(b) states that an auditee must prepare appropriate financial statements, including the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with § 200.510. U.S. Code § 200.510(b)(3) states that at a minimum the SEFA provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal program and the Assistance Listings Number or other identifying number when the Assistance Listings information is not available. For a cluster of programs also provide the total for the cluster. The inclusion of correct Assistance Listing numbers on the SEFA is a critical factor in determining major and non-major programs and designing appropriate audit procedures for individual grants. Condition: The SEFA prepared by management included an incorrect Assistance Listing (AL) number for one grant. Federal grant AL No. 20.513 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities was incorrectly identified as AL No. 20.507 Mobility Management. While both grants are from the Federal Transit Agency, they fall under different clusters in the Office of Management and Budget’s Compliance Supplement and thus have different audit requirements. Cause: Paratransit’s internal controls over the completeness of the SEFA were not operating effectively. Effect: The grant in question was initially identified as a major grant and certain audit procedures were applied. The revision of the AL number resulted in this grant being considered non-major, thus not required to be tested. Recommendation: We recommend management verify with the grantor the AL number of the grant. This can be done by obtaining this information from grant documents, or direct communication with the grantor. We further recommend the SEFA be reviewed for accuracy by an individual not included in the SEFA preparation process. Review should be notated with initials and date. Management’s Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Finding: 2023-001: SEFA – Material Weakness The SEFA prepared by management included an incorrect Assistance Listing (AL) number for one grant. Federal grant AL NO. 20.513 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities was incorrectly identified as AL No 20.507 Mobility Management. While both grants are from the Federal Transit Agency, they fall under different clusters in the Office of Management and Budget’s Compliance Supplement and thus have different audit requirements. Auditor Recommendation: We recommend management verify with the grantor the AL number of the grant. This can be done by obtaining the information from grant documents, or direct communication with the grantor. We further recommend the SEFA be reviewed for accuracy by an individual not included in the SEFA preparation process. Review should be notate with initials and date. Contact Person Responsible for the Corrective Action: Lisa Cappellari, Chief Financial Officer, LisaC@paratransit.org Management Response and Corrective Action Plan: After the end of Fiscal Year 23-24 on 6/30/2024, Jody Wadley, Finance and Grants Manager, will start the preparation of the FY24 SEFA and make sure all components are correct. Lisa Cappellari, Chief Financial Officer, will review the SEFA for accuracy, checking grant documents and directly contacting the granting agency if necessary. Once each component of the SEFA is thoroughly reviewed, Lisa Cappellari will initial and date.
Costs for US Department of Transportation, Mobility Management Grant 20.507 Section 5307 included a $30,000 charge for use of the Data Management System (DMS). The charge is based on a contract rate charged to outside entities that varies depending on the number of users. Management stated the charge was to recoup costs for use of the DMS. Costs for the DMS consist of historical costs to get the system functioning, along with current personnel costs to operate the system and provide the contracted training. The historical costs occurred outside the period of performance and are thus unallowable. Personnel costs are already being charged to the grant through the allocated payroll and benefits of trainers and other personnel, and thus should not also be charged through the contract rate. In addition, if the contract rate includes a profit component this would also be unallowable to charge to the grant. We also noted the same $30,000 charge was included in US Department of Transportation, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities, Section 5310. Cause: Paratransit’s internal controls over the determination of allowable costs were not operating effectively. Effect: The DMS costs were removed and replaced with an allowable 10% de minimus overhead charge. Recommendation: We recommend that costs charged to federal grants be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Management’s Response: See corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2023-002: Questioned Cost – Material Weakness Criteria: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Also, costs should not be included as a cost of any other federally financed programs in either the current or prior period. Costs charged to federal grants should be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Condition: Costs for US Department of Transportation, Mobility Management Grant 20.507 Section 5307 included a $30,000 charge for use of the Data Management System (DMS). The charge is based on a contract rate charged to outside entities that varies depending on the number of users. Management stated the charge was to recoup costs for use of the DMS. Costs for the DMS consist of historical costs to get the system functioning, along with current personnel costs to operate the system and provide the contracted training. The historical costs occurred outside the period of performance and are thus unallowable. Personnel costs are already being charged to the grant through the allocated payroll and benefits of trainers and other personnel, and thus should not also be charged through the contract rate. In addition, if the contract rate includes a profit component this would also be unallowable to charge to the grant. We also noted the same $30,000 charge was included in US Department of Transportation, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities, Section 5310. Cause: Paratransit’s internal controls over the determination of allowable costs were not operating effectively. Effect: The DMS costs were removed and replaced with an allowable 10% de minimus overhead charge. Recommendation: We recommend that costs charged to federal grants be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Management’s Response: See corrective action plan.
Finding: 2023-002: Questioned Cost – Material Weakness Costs for US Department of Transportation, Mobility Management Grant 20.507 Section 5307 included a $30,000 charge for use of the Data Management System (DMS). The charge is based on a contract rate charged to outside entities that varies depending on the number of users. Management stated the charge was to recoup costs for use of the DMS. Costs for the DMS consist of historical costs to get the system functioning, along with current personnel costs to operate the system and provide the contracted training. The historical costs occurred outside the period of performance and are thus unallowable. Personnel costs are already being charged to the grant through the allocated payroll and benefits of trainers and other personnel, and thus should not also be charged through the contract rate. In addition, if the contract rate includes a profit component this would also be unallowable to charge to the grant. Auditor Recommendation: We recommend that costs charged to federal grants be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Contact Person Responsible for the Corrective Action: Lisa Cappellari, Chief Financial Officer, LisaC@paratransit.org Management Response and Corrective Action Plan: After the end of Fiscal Year 23-24 on 6/30/2024, Jody Wadley, Finance and Grants Manager, and Lisa Cappellari, Chief Financial Officer, will compile all expense to be charged to any federal grants. Tiffani Scott, Chief Executive Officer, will review the expense against the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 to make sure all expense is eligible.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2023 — management decision was due July 8, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 17, 2022 — management decision was due July 17, 2022.
The Accounts Receivable Aging and Accounts Payable Aging report balances were notreconciled to the GL. When we performed these reconciliations, we noted $147,000 in accountsreceivable GL activity not reflected in the Accounts Receivable Aging Report due to a batch doubleposting. We also noted $70,000 in activity posted in the Accounts Payable GL that was not reflected inthe Accounts Payable Aging Report, and $13,900 of items on the Accounts Payable Aging report thatwere not reflected in the Accounts Payable GL. All items have been corrected by management.Cause: Subsidiary ledgers were not being reconciled on a periodic basis.Effect: Adjustments were required in the GL to correct errors and mispostings.Recommendation: We recommend that the Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Aging Reports bereconciled to the general ledger on a period basis, but no less than quarterly.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Subsidiary ledgers should be reconciled to the general ledger (GL) on a periodic basis (monthlyor quarterly) by accounting personnel. This important internal control ensures activity from thesubsidiary ledgers is reflected in the GL, and that GL activity not reflected in the subsidiary ledgers isappropriate.Condition: The Accounts Receivable Aging and Accounts Payable Aging report balances were notreconciled to the GL. When we performed these reconciliations, we noted $147,000 in accountsreceivable GL activity not reflected in the Accounts Receivable Aging Report due to a batch doubleposting. We also noted $70,000 in activity posted in the Accounts Payable GL that was not reflected inthe Accounts Payable Aging Report, and $13,900 of items on the Accounts Payable Aging report thatwere not reflected in the Accounts Payable GL. All items have been corrected by management.Cause: Subsidiary ledgers were not being reconciled on a periodic basis.Effect: Adjustments were required in the GL to correct errors and mispostings.Recommendation: We recommend that the Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable Aging Reports bereconciled to the general ledger on a period basis, but no less than quarterly.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Cause and Effect: Subsidiary ledgers were not being reconciled on aperiod basis therefore adjustments were required in the GL to correcterrors and mispostings.Recommendation: The Accounts Receivable and Accounts PayableAging Reports should be reconciled to the general ledger on a periodicbasis, but no less than quarterly.Action Taken: We concur with the recommendation and will start amonthly reconciliation of Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payableto general ledger on January 3, 2022.
The Sage Accounting System is set up so that accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable(AP) are locked to making entries through the GL. This is because any adjustments to these accountsshould be made through the accounts payable and accounts receivable subsidiary ledgers. As a workaround accounting personnel make AR and AP adjustments through suspense accounts. We also notedpayroll activity is posted to the AP Suspense account. All items have been corrected by management.Cause: Suspense accounts were not being reconciled on a periodic basis.Effect: The Accounts Payable Suspense Account had a credit balance of $137,000 at June 30, 2021.When we reconciled the activity in the Suspense Account we noted activity related to payroll accrual,grants receivable, tax deferred annuity costs, and medical benefit costs that needed to be reclassified.Recommendation: We recommend suspense accounts be reconciled on a period basis, but no less thanquarterly.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Suspense accounts are used to temporarily record financial transactions, which are latertransferred to their applicable GL account. Periodic reconciliations of suspense accounts should beperformed on a periodic basis (monthly or quarterly) by accounting personnel. This important internalcontrol ensures activity is properly reported in the financial statements.Condition: The Sage Accounting System is set up so that accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable(AP) are locked to making entries through the GL. This is because any adjustments to these accountsshould be made through the accounts payable and accounts receivable subsidiary ledgers. As a workaround accounting personnel make AR and AP adjustments through suspense accounts. We also notedpayroll activity is posted to the AP Suspense account. All items have been corrected by management.Cause: Suspense accounts were not being reconciled on a periodic basis.Effect: The Accounts Payable Suspense Account had a credit balance of $137,000 at June 30, 2021.When we reconciled the activity in the Suspense Account we noted activity related to payroll accrual,grants receivable, tax deferred annuity costs, and medical benefit costs that needed to be reclassified.Recommendation: We recommend suspense accounts be reconciled on a period basis, but no less thanquarterly.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Cause and Effect: The Accounts Payable Suspense account was not beingreconciled on a periodic basis requiring payroll accrual, grants receivable,tax deferred annuity costs, and medical benefits costs to be reclassified.Recommendation: The Accounts Payable Suspense account should bereconciled on a periodic basis, but no less than quarterly.Action Taken: We concur with the recommendation and will reduce the useof the Accounts Payable Suspense account as well as start a monthlyreconciliation of the Accounts Payable Suspense account on January 3,2022.
The June 30, 2021 Wells Fargo bank reconciliation reflected a book balance that was$258,000 lower than the actual book balance. We were informed there were some test batches posted tothe GL by mistake. We also noted a double posting of a batch. It appears these differences were beingaccounting for outside the bank reconciliation so that the book balance was adjusted prior to beingincluded on the bank reconciliation.Cause: Paratransit?s internal controls over bank reconciliations were not operating effectively.Effect: Reconciling items were not included on the bank reconciliation. This sidesteps the purpose ofperforming these reconciliations so that those charged with management may investigate potential errorsand/or fraud.Recommendation: We recommend that the book balance reflect the actual GL balance on the bankreconciliation, and that any differences be accounted for as reconciling items on the reconciliation.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Bank reconciliations should be performed on a monthly basis using a correct format. Thisformat starts with balances per the GL and the Bank, then adds or subtracts items that are reflected in oneand not the other. This important internal control helps identify account and bank errors in addition tohelping detecting and preventing fraud.Condition: The June 30, 2021 Wells Fargo bank reconciliation reflected a book balance that was$258,000 lower than the actual book balance. We were informed there were some test batches posted tothe GL by mistake. We also noted a double posting of a batch. It appears these differences were beingaccounting for outside the bank reconciliation so that the book balance was adjusted prior to beingincluded on the bank reconciliation.Cause: Paratransit?s internal controls over bank reconciliations were not operating effectively.Effect: Reconciling items were not included on the bank reconciliation. This sidesteps the purpose ofperforming these reconciliations so that those charged with management may investigate potential errorsand/or fraud.Recommendation: We recommend that the book balance reflect the actual GL balance on the bankreconciliation, and that any differences be accounted for as reconciling items on the reconciliation.Managements? Response: See Corrective Action Plan
Cause and Effect: Paratransit?s internal controls over bank reconciliationswere not operating effectively, resulting in reconciling items that were notincluded on the bank reconciliation.Recommendation: The book balance should reflect the actual GL balance onthe bank reconciliation, and any differences be accounted for as reconcilingitems on the reconciliation.Action Taken: We concur with the recommendation and will implement amonthly reconciliation of the book balance to the GL balance on January 3,2022.
FAC accepted this audit on February 9, 2019 — management decision was due August 9, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴FAC accepted this audit on December 30, 2016 — management decision was due June 30, 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 California →
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.
