Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Federal Grants Management Monitoring Reviews_ Technical .._1_

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 41

									Training, Technical
Assistance, Monitoring
and A-133 Audits
A-133 Audit Requirements

   In 1984 the Single Audit Act was enacted.
    This was to improve audit coverage of federal
    monies
   In 1997 OMB issued revised Circular A-133,
    Audits of States, Local Governments and
    Non-Profit Organizations
   Sets uniform standards for the audit of
    States, local governments, and non-profit
    organizations expending Federal awards
A-133 Audit Requirements

   Requires audit of “non-Federal entities”
    expending more than $500,000 of Federal
    awards in a single year

   If expenditures are all in one Federal
    program, may be “program-specific” audit

   Otherwise, must be entity-wide Single Audit
Who performs the county Single
Audit?
   Auditor of State (AOS), or

   Independent Public Accountant (IPA)
       May be at county request or at AOS initiative

       AOS must approve scope of audit and perform
        quality assurance review
What is the scope of an A-133 audit?

   Review 14 compliance requirements which
    cover all concepts of the program
   Review 50% of federal dollars/25% if low-risk
    auditee (but must cover all Type A high-risk
    programs)
   Report questioned costs over $10,000 (actual
    or projected), material non-compliance and
    material internal control citations
“Major Program” Concept

   Risk-based approach used to determine
    “major programs” to be audited
   Requires identification of “Type A” and Type
    B” federal programs from Schedule of
    Federal Awards Expended
   Six basic steps to identify programs to be
    tested:
       Identify Type A programs
       Determine “high risk” Type A programs
“Major Program” Concept

   Identify Type B programs
   Select “high risk” Type B programs
   Replace “low risk” Type A programs with
    “high risk” Type B programs
   Apply “percentage of coverage” rule at 50%
    or 25%, as applicable
“Major Program” Concept

 Total Expenditures from        Type A Programs
    Federal Schedule
 $500,000 to $10 million      Greater than $300,000


$10 million to $100 million    Greater than 3% of
                               Federal Schedule

$100 million to $1 billion    Greater than $3 million
“Major Program” Concept

                 Before County      With County
                Family Services    Family Services
                   Agencies          Agencies
Federal        $4,804,402         $18,943,714
Expenditures

Type A


Type B
“Major Program” Concept

               Before County   With County
               Agencies        Agencies

Federal        $4,804,402      $18,943,714
Expenditures

Type A         $300,000        $568,311


Type B         $87,000         $87,000
Example – 2006 – As Reported
      Federal Program           CFDA     Amount       Type
Medicaid                      93.778   $1,349,971   A - high
CDBG                          14.228    1,081,098   A – high
WIA                           17.258     862,268    A - low
Highway Planning              20.205     321,552    A - low
Homeland Security             97.067     226,883    B - high
Home Investment Partnership   14.239     216,318    B – low
Byrne Justice Assistance      16.738     152,457    B - low
17 Other Programs < 100k                 593,855
Total Federal Awards                   $4,804,402
Example – 2006 – With County
Agency Monies Included
  Federal Program               CFDA      Amount        Type
Medicaid                     93.778     $3,717,224   A - high
TANF                         93.558      3,665,351   A - high
Child Support (Title IV-D)   93.563      1,840,820   A - high
Foster Care (Title IV-E)     93.658      1,675,325   A - high
SSBG (Title XX)              93.667      1,145,455   A - high
CDBG                         14.228      1,081,098   A - high
Child Care                   93.575       929,237    A - high
SNAP                         10.551       862,416    A - high
WIA                          17.258       862,268    A - low
28 Other Programs <568k                  3,164,520
Total Federal Awards                   $18,943,714
Hours and Cost

   Factors that influence audit hours and cost:
       14 Administrative Requirements
           Applicable per AOS: Activities Allowed, Cash
            Management, Period of Availability, Reporting
           May be Applicable per AOS: Allowable Costs, Eligibility,
            Equipment and Real Property, Matching, Procurement,
            Subrecipient Monitoring, Special Tests and Provisions
           May not be Applicable per AOS: Davis-Bacon Act,
            Program Income, Real Property Acquisition/Relocation
            Assistance
Hours and Cost

   Number of Case Files or Transactions
   Centralized Testing (RMS, Indirect Cost
    Programs)
   Condition of Records
   Retrieval Time of Records
Cost

   Cost of a Single Audit is an allowable
    reimbursable cost

   County will be charged by AOS for time
    auditing county agencies

   Proportion of cost will be allocated to each
    county department
A-133 Audit Report Components

   An opinion on the financial statements
   A report on the county’s internal controls –
    reportable conditions and material
    weaknesses
   Information on a county’s compliance with
    program requirements along with findings
    and questioned costs
   Could include a corrective action plan when
    there is an audit finding
The Auditor’s Assessment of Internal
Control and Compliance Testing
   The Auditor will:
       Identify your processes for administering “major”
        programs
       Identify “key” internal controls
       Test key controls
           Are the controls properly designed?
           Have the controls been placed in operation?
           Are the controls functioning as designed?
The Auditor’s Assessment of Internal
Control and Compliance Testing
   The results of the Auditor’s tests of internal
    control are used to assess control risk
       If control risk is low, the Auditor may reduce the
        extent of testing
       If control risk is medium or high, the Auditor may
        keep the extent of testing the same or increase
        the extent of testing
The Auditor’s Assessment of Internal
Control and Compliance Testing
   How can you encourage the Auditor to
    reduce the extent of testing?
       Document your processes and the related internal
        controls
       Maintain good documentation of your activities
           Establish and maintain an effective records retention
            process
           Document reviews of records, checks, authorizations
            and supervisory reviews
           Establish policies and procedures with reasonable
            flexibility
Common Issues
   Missing case files
   Failure to monitor subrecipients
   Missing documentation in case files
   Improper claiming of building costs
   Non-compliance with procurement
    requirements/failure to document
Common Issues
   Improper claiming of equipment costs
   Improper charges in cost pools
   RMS issues
   Interfund transfers charged as costs
A-133 Audit Resolution

   Within six months of receiving a copy of the
    county’s Single Audit, ODJFS must:
       Issue a management decision on whether it
        sustains the audit finding(s) affecting their grant
        awards
       The reason for its decision
       The corrective action the county must take along
        with time frames
Initiatives to Prepare for County A-
133 Single Audits
   Federal Grants Management Monitoring
    Reviews, Technical Assistance and Training
    Plan
       New consulting-based monitoring reviews
       Technical assistance, including consulting
        services
       Expanded training programs
Core Principles
   Purpose is comprehensive and integrated
    model of technical assistance, training and
    monitoring, based upon eight core principles:
       Solution Oriented
       State and County Collaboration
       County to County Collaboration
       Differentiated Services
Core Principles, cont’d

    Risk-Based Approach
    Integrated Technical Assistance, Training and
     Monitoring
    Leveraging Resources
    Maximizing Use of Technology
Key Definitions
   Technical Assistance – needs-based,
    focused and solution-oriented provision of
    technical knowledge, guidance and
    information to meet federal and state
    expectations
       Fiscal Services – financial accounting and
        reporting issues
       Program Offices – program design and policy
        development
       ORAA – process design and enhancement
Key Definitions, cont’d
   Training – broad-based, planned, structured
    educational programs to communicate
    federal and state expectations, and methods
    to effectively and efficiently meet these
    expectations and improve performance
   Division of responsibility by Fiscal Services,
    Program Offices, and ORAA would track that
    for technical assistance, noted above
Key Definitions, cont’d

   Monitoring – risk-based reviews of county
    family services agencies administrative
    practices to gauge performance, provide
    information for improvement and identification
    of best practices, and identify training needs
    and provide technical assistance specific to
    the agency in question
Relationship of Training, Technical
Assistance and Monitoring
   Training tells you what you need to know and
    do to have successful federal grants
    management
   Technical Assistance tells you how to do it
   Monitoring measures how well you do it and
    identifies impediments to success
County Agency Needs

   Support in navigating initial A-133 Single
    Audits
   Guidance on existing known county issues
   County-specific consulting assistance on
    request
   Assessment of the effectiveness of training
    and technical assistance
Value-Added Services

   It is challenging and necessary to provide
    value-added technical assistance, training
    and monitoring which benefits county
    agencies
   Necessary characteristics include:
       Meet county agency needs for support and
        guidance
       Assist county agencies in improving efficiency and
        effectiveness of local operations
Value-Added Services, cont’d

    Proactively assist counties in eliminating or
     reducing exposure to AOS A-133 Single Audit
     findings
    Meet federal requirements for provision of
     technical assistance, training and monitoring
    Eliminate ODJFS exposure to AOS A-133 Single
     Audit findings for inadequate county agency
     monitoring
Methods of Providing Technical
Assistance
   Should vary by:
       Size
       Available resources
       Preferences
   Specific methods:
       Consulting services
       Technical and practice aids
Training Methods

   Regional meetings on defined topics

   Presentation at association conferences

   Video training
Monitoring

   Objectives:

       Meet federal requirements

       Promote good management in county agencies

       Provide positive benefit to county agencies
Monitoring, cont’d

   Components
       Guided Self-Assessments
       Risk Assessment
       On-Site Monitoring Reviews
       Technical Assistance Reports
       On-going Technical Assistance
       On-going Training
Implementation

   Communicate plan to major associations
       OJFSDA
       OCDA
       PCSAO
   Identify pilot counties
   Develop Guided Self Assessment
   Develop Monitoring Assessment Tool
   Develop Technical Assistance Report 
Implementation, cont’d

   Conduct initial assessments and reviews –
    underway
   Issue initial Technical Assistance Reports -
    underway
   Develop critical technical assistance
    materials - underway
   Plan and develop critical training activities -
    underway
Conclusion

   The state cannot do it all
   The state cannot achieve success by merely
    passing responsibilities to the counties
   The state and counties can only succeed by
    recognizing their shared responsibilities,
    within federal constraints, for administration
    of our federal programs
Questions and Comments?

								
To top