EIN: 942938597
UEI: EAETF6JHF598
Audited by: Gilbert CPAs
Oversight agency: 93 [Department of Health and Human Services]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 3, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 21, 2025. 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 February 21, 2026 (195 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on July 23, 2024 — management decision was due January 23, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on October 24, 2022 — management decision was due April 24, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on November 15, 2021 — management decision was due May 15, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on March 18, 2021 — management decision was due September 18, 2021.
Criteria Topic 958 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board?s Accounting Standards Generally Accepted in the United States requires organizations to allocate costs among functional classifications, including costs indirectly associated with a functional classification. Condition The Foundation did not have policies in place to allocate indirect costs to their appropriate functional classifications. Cause The Foundation did not have a formal financial statement close procedure to perform the allocations in accordance with Topic 958. Context The Foundation had performed these functionals typically during their year-end annual audit or review, and had not performed the allocations on the financial statements provided for audit. Effect The Foundation had under allocated costs to federal programs and other restricted grants. Subsequent to financial statement issuance, the Foundation had performed such allocations as a result of audit procedures. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should develop a month end close process that reviews and allocates indirect costs for proper allocation, and management should implement a month end close procedure that includes a review of the financial statements including functional allocations for reasonableness. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria Topic 958 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board?s Accounting Standards Generally Accepted in the United States requires organizations to allocate costs among functional classifications, including costs indirectly associated with a functional classification. Condition The Foundation did not have policies in place to allocate indirect costs to their appropriate functional classifications. Cause The Foundation did not have a formal financial statement close procedure to perform the allocations in accordance with Topic 958. Context The Foundation had performed these functionals typically during their year-end annual audit or review, and had not performed the allocations on the financial statements provided for audit. Effect The Foundation had under allocated costs to federal programs and other restricted grants. Subsequent to financial statement issuance, the Foundation had performed such allocations as a result of audit procedures. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should develop a month end close process that reviews and allocates indirect costs for proper allocation, and management should implement a month end close procedure that includes a review of the financial statements including functional allocations for reasonableness. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Recommendation: The Organization should develop a month end close process that reviews and allocates indirect costs for proper allocation, and management should implement a month end close procedure that includes a review of the financial statements including functional allocations for reasonableness. Action: The current CAFP-F monthly review of the CAFP-F financial statements will be expanded to include the Executive Director?s review at that time of the CAFP-F?s Statement of Functional Expenses. Given the relationship the CAFP-F has with the CAFP, the indirect cost allocation denominator used for that statement will be created under the auspices and review of the CAFP CEO and accountant and with the cooperation of the pertinent CAFP staff; this data will be forwarded to the CAFP-F accountant. Direct and indirect CAFP-F functional expenses will be assigned to the appropriate fund classification and account code. These associations will be made on an on-going basis by the Executive Director as direct expenses present themselves and will be reviewed for consistency and correctness by the CAFP-F accountant. The indirect expenses will be calculated by the CAFP-F accountant using the proration of staff time as the functional expense denominator that allocates general expenses not specifically assigned to other, restricted fund costs. The summing and classification of these expenses against the month?s additional income earned will constitute the information of the expanded financial package for review and sign-off by the Executive Director. Any reclassifications or adjustments related to prior period postings that impact restricted fund reporting will be identified by the Executive Director and forwarded to the CAFP-F accountant. Those changes will be posted to the appropriate period. Such a reclassification or adjustment will have an explanation by the Executive Director acknowledging the change and effect.
Criteria Topic 958 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board?s Accounting Standards Generally Accepted in the United States requires organizations to determine whether contributions include conditions that present barriers that must be overcome in order to recognize related contribution revenue. Condition The Foundation did not review grant documents in sufficient detail to be aware of all grant conditions required to be met in order to recognize contribution revenue. Cause Past history with the Foundation?s grants did not typically include conditions for recognition as revenue beyond maintaining a budget of costs in total. Context The Foundation entered into a grant with federal awards that included a cost reimbursement requirement, with a budgeted maximum cost per specific task achieved. Effect The Foundation tracked only the task achieved, and not the related costs associated with that task. Questioned Costs None. The Foundation was able to subsequently evaluate costs, and apply them accurately to specific tasks. No violations of the budget were detected as a result of audit procedures. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation Client should develop a process of reviewing all grants and awards documenting any conditions and compliance requirements necessary for recognition as revenue. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria Topic 958 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board?s Accounting Standards Generally Accepted in the United States requires organizations to determine whether contributions include conditions that present barriers that must be overcome in order to recognize related contribution revenue. Condition The Foundation did not review grant documents in sufficient detail to be aware of all grant conditions required to be met in order to recognize contribution revenue. Cause Past history with the Foundation?s grants did not typically include conditions for recognition as revenue beyond maintaining a budget of costs in total. Context The Foundation entered into a grant with federal awards that included a cost reimbursement requirement, with a budgeted maximum cost per specific task achieved. Effect The Foundation tracked only the task achieved, and not the related costs associated with that task. Questioned Costs None. The Foundation was able to subsequently evaluate costs, and apply them accurately to specific tasks. No violations of the budget were detected as a result of audit procedures. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation Client should develop a process of reviewing all grants and awards documenting any conditions and compliance requirements necessary for recognition as revenue. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Recommendation: Client should develop a process of reviewing all grants and awards documenting any conditions and compliance requirements necessary for recognition as revenue. Action: The CAFP Foundation has formalized its system to manage all grants. The system includes a cover page documenting the proposal, budget, receipt date, award amount, appropriate deliverables and invoicing dates, and progress on the milestones. The grant review documents are kept within the project file in Egnyte and made easily available to staff members responsible for the work. The project teams, which meet regularly now to review project process, will continue to meet and add updates to the review documents. The Foundation Board of Trustees and other relevant committees will be continue to be updated semi-annually on grant progress, as is currently the case.
CFDA: 93.788 Program Title: Opioid - State Targeted Response Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agency: California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services Pass-Through Award No.: 18-95549 Criteria Uniform Guidance section 200.305 Payment requires non-federal entities to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and the disbursement by the non-federal entity. Further, if the non-federal entity cannot meet the general requirements for advance payment, then the awarding agency must make the determination that reimbursement is not feasible prior to utilizing the working capital advance basis of payment. Condition The Foundation did not have the polices in place required for advance funding under 200.305, and did not request a determination from the awarding agency to utilize the working capital advance basis of payment. Cause The Foundation interpreted the terms of the grant to allow prepayment upon completion of certain deliverables. Context The grant terms stated the costs were to be reimbursements, and payments were requested from the grantor by the Foundation prior to the completion of certain deliverables and incurrence of expenditures. Effect Cash was provided to the Foundation in excess of what was necessary when billed, and did not minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and the disbursement by the Foundation. As of November 22, 2019, the Foundation had obtained $1,352,000 of grant payments, and had expended $844,798 by December 31, 2019. An additional $20,000 was expended in January 2020 with no further expenditures until February 10, 2020. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should develop the required criteria to request advance payments, or obtain permission from the granting agency that advance payments are necessary under the working capital advance basis of payment minimizing the time between when payments are received and expended. When advance payments are obtained to pay sub-recipients, the Foundation should ensure that sub-recipients have implemented the required criteria for advance payments, or provide the Foundation with documentation as to why they will need to employ the working capital advance basis of payment and the review and approval of such requests should be documented. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴CFDA: 93.788 Program Title: Opioid - State Targeted Response Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agency: California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services Pass-Through Award No.: 18-95549 Criteria Uniform Guidance section 200.305 Payment requires non-federal entities to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and the disbursement by the non-federal entity. Further, if the non-federal entity cannot meet the general requirements for advance payment, then the awarding agency must make the determination that reimbursement is not feasible prior to utilizing the working capital advance basis of payment. Condition The Foundation did not have the polices in place required for advance funding under 200.305, and did not request a determination from the awarding agency to utilize the working capital advance basis of payment. Cause The Foundation interpreted the terms of the grant to allow prepayment upon completion of certain deliverables. Context The grant terms stated the costs were to be reimbursements, and payments were requested from the grantor by the Foundation prior to the completion of certain deliverables and incurrence of expenditures. Effect Cash was provided to the Foundation in excess of what was necessary when billed, and did not minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds and the disbursement by the Foundation. As of November 22, 2019, the Foundation had obtained $1,352,000 of grant payments, and had expended $844,798 by December 31, 2019. An additional $20,000 was expended in January 2020 with no further expenditures until February 10, 2020. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should develop the required criteria to request advance payments, or obtain permission from the granting agency that advance payments are necessary under the working capital advance basis of payment minimizing the time between when payments are received and expended. When advance payments are obtained to pay sub-recipients, the Foundation should ensure that sub-recipients have implemented the required criteria for advance payments, or provide the Foundation with documentation as to why they will need to employ the working capital advance basis of payment and the review and approval of such requests should be documented. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Recommendation: The Organization should develop the required criteria to request advance payments, or obtain permission from the granting agency that advance payments are necessary under the working capital advance basis of payment minimizing the time between payments are received and expended. When advance payments are obtained to pay sub-recipients, the Organization should ensure that sub-recipients have implemented the required criteria for advance payments, or provide the Organization with documentation as to why they will need to employ the working capital advance basis of payment and the review and approval of such requests should be documented. Action: Based on review of the Grant Review System documentation, the CAFP Foundation will use the deliverables and milestones set out in the grant approval document to track billable progress. Should advance payments be required to meet project expenditures, the project lead will communicate the documented need to the funder and if approved invoice for the amount. Using the master Grant Review system document, and budget spreadsheet developed for the 2019 audit, the CAFP Foundation will track direct and indirect expenses, tied to deliverables/milestones, and invoice the funder accordingly. This process supports financial allocations for the progress toward project completion.
CFDA: 93.788 Program Title: Opioid - State Targeted Response Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agency: California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services Pass-Through Award No.: 18-95549 Criteria Uniform Guidance section 200.302 Financial Management requires non-federal entities to maintain accurate accounting of federal expenditures within its accounts, and to provide adequate controls over those expenditures. Condition The Foundations federal award included a requirement to track expenditures incurred to achieve certain milestones, and not to exceed budgets related to milestones. The Foundation did not track all costs related to the federal award, and did not track costs related to achieve the milestones defined in the award. As a result of audit procedures, management did perform such allocations in order to properly reflect the expenditures within its accounts. Cause The Foundation believed only the achievement of milestones was necessary for reimbursement, and that tracking expenditures by budget per milestone was not necessary. Context The grant terms stated the costs were to be reimbursements of expenditures up to a budgeted maximum cost per milestone. Effect The Foundation was unaware of whether the contract budget was over or under spent. As a result of audit procedures, management performed a review of all expenditures and allocated costs to the applicable milestones and there were no expenditures in excess of budgeted costs. The low volume of accounting transactions allowed for a materially accurate allocation after the fact. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should allocate costs to budgeted classifications in order to determine if requests for reimbursement are within allowed budgeted amounts. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴CFDA: 93.788 Program Title: Opioid - State Targeted Response Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-Through Agency: California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services Pass-Through Award No.: 18-95549 Criteria Uniform Guidance section 200.302 Financial Management requires non-federal entities to maintain accurate accounting of federal expenditures within its accounts, and to provide adequate controls over those expenditures. Condition The Foundations federal award included a requirement to track expenditures incurred to achieve certain milestones, and not to exceed budgets related to milestones. The Foundation did not track all costs related to the federal award, and did not track costs related to achieve the milestones defined in the award. As a result of audit procedures, management did perform such allocations in order to properly reflect the expenditures within its accounts. Cause The Foundation believed only the achievement of milestones was necessary for reimbursement, and that tracking expenditures by budget per milestone was not necessary. Context The grant terms stated the costs were to be reimbursements of expenditures up to a budgeted maximum cost per milestone. Effect The Foundation was unaware of whether the contract budget was over or under spent. As a result of audit procedures, management performed a review of all expenditures and allocated costs to the applicable milestones and there were no expenditures in excess of budgeted costs. The low volume of accounting transactions allowed for a materially accurate allocation after the fact. Questioned Costs None. Prior Audit Finding No. Recommendation The Foundation should allocate costs to budgeted classifications in order to determine if requests for reimbursement are within allowed budgeted amounts. Views of Responsible Officials The Foundation agrees with the finding, and will implement procedures to implement the recommendation.
Recommendation: The Organization should allocate costs to budgeted classifications in order to determine if requests for reimbursement are within allowed budgeted amounts. Action: Direct and indirect expenses will be assigned to the appropriate fund classification and associated with a specific billing cycle. These associations will be made on an on-going basis by the Executive Director as expenses present themselves and will be reviewed for consistency and correctness by the CAFP-F accountant. Prior to initiating a request for reimbursement or at the end of a monthly financial statements closing, the Executive Director and the CAFP-F accountant will review the most recent closed month?s Statement of Functional Expenses as well as current period posted transactions to reaffirm the appropriateness of those classifications and the period of the current and following billing cycles as determined by the grant documents.
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 →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.
