1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.
-
Upload
easter-mccoy -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.
![Page 1: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
![Page 2: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1. OIG Audit2. A-133 Audit3. Federal Monitoring4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring
2
![Page 3: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What types of audit violations are deemed “significant” by the U.S. Education Department?
3
![Page 4: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1. Time Distribution2. MOE3. Supplement, not supplant4. Over-Allocating5. Unallowable Expenses
4
![Page 5: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
6. Illegal Procurement Practices7. Serving Ineligible Students8. Lack of Accountability for
Equipment/Materials9. Obligations Beyond Period of
Availability10.Matching Violations
5
![Page 6: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
11.Excess Cost12.Lack of Appropriate Record Keeping 13.Record Retention Problems14.Late or no Submission of Required
Reports15.Allocations Improperly Approved
6
![Page 7: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
16.Audits of Subrecipient Unresolved17.Lack of Subrecipient Monitoring18.Drawdown before they are needed or
more than 90 days after the end of funding period
19.Large Carryover Balances20.Discrepancies in Reports Filed
7
![Page 8: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
21.Errors in Student Per Pupil Expenditures
22.Title I Comparability23.Lack of valid, reliable or complete
performance data
8
![Page 9: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
1) Matching - “The Valencia Story”2) MOE – Oklahoma3) Supplanting/Time and Effort – New York
State
9
![Page 10: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• A 12 year nightmare
• Be careful what guidance you rely on
10
![Page 11: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Beginning in 1999 Valencia received 7
Gear-up Awards
• Gear-up statute required a 50% match
• The official OPE application package listed “facilities” as an example of “match”
11
![Page 12: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
“The value assigned to in-kind contribution in non federal match may not exceed the fair market
value of the property”
OPE Gear Up Packet
12
![Page 13: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
February 2001-
OPE site visit facilities could not be used for match if “depreciation” or “use allowance” included in college’s indirect cost pool.
13
![Page 14: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
VCC College did not include depreciation or use allowance in its indirect cost pool
14
![Page 15: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• OIG conducted audit to review VCC in-kind match documentation.
• Issue: Did VCC include depreciation or use allowance in indirect cost pool no
15
![Page 16: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
2nd OIG visit October 2001› OIG – use of facilities violated non-supplant
provision, because existing facilities could never be used as a match
November 2001 – OIG informs VCC of no intent to pursue supplanting violation, but will return to VCC for 3rd visit.
16
![Page 17: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
• Meeting in D.C. with VCC, OIG (Rich Rasa), OCFO (Ted Mueller)
• Discussion Points1. Professionalism of auditors 2. Site selection3. Calculation of match for 3rd visit
17
![Page 18: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• Methodology on match calculation – flawed
• Must be depreciation or use allowance, not fair market value
18
![Page 19: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
• Refund $1,822,864 for match violation
• Final audit report May 2003
19
![Page 20: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1st PDL› Did not sustain audit findings› Does VCC have additional matching
contributions
20
![Page 21: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Between 2003-2010, VCC submitted data on additional match scholarships.
21
![Page 22: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Final PDL› VCC must refund $289,966
22
![Page 23: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
VCC did not appeal What about statute of limitations? Five
years!
23
![Page 24: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Mitigating circumstances› 34 CFR 81.33 (page 135)
“unjust to compel recovery of funds because the recipient’s violation was caused by erroneous written guidance from the department.”
24
![Page 25: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
![Page 26: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
ED’s Authority to Compromise Claims Against Grantees
26
![Page 27: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Assistant Secretary (OSERs) issued PDL to recover $583,943 of IDEA-Part B from Oklahoma based on Single Audit
27
![Page 28: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
PDL identified 76 LEAs that violated maintenance of effort
28
![Page 29: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Oklahoma and ED jointly stayed the briefing before OALJ to pursue settlement
Based on additional documentation, amount reduced to $289,501
29
![Page 30: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Then ED compromised claim to $217,126 or 75%
30
![Page 31: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Oklahoma had taken: Corrective action Not practical or in public interest for ED
to continue the litigation See 76 F.R. 5363, 1/31/11
31
![Page 32: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Supplanting / Time and EffortNew York / Kiryas Joel
ACN 02K00032/2/11
32
![Page 33: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
One public school, serving 123 students, all special needs
6,000 students in KJ attend private school
Receives $5,044,791 in Title I $772,842 in IDEA
33
![Page 34: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
$276,443 in Title I funds used to pay part of the lease on the one public school building. KJ did not incur any additional lease costs as a result of providing Title I services.
34
![Page 35: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
KJ could not provide adequate supporting documentation for $191,124 in salary expenditures for Title I.
35
![Page 36: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
For Time and Effort violations resort to reconstruction (e.g. affidavits).
36
![Page 37: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
1. Settlement – resolve questioned costs by mutual agreement 81.14 (page 132)
2. Voluntary Mediation – 81.13 (page 132)3. CAROI – relies on alternative and
creative approaches in resolving findings, but non-adversarial
4. Appeal before OALJ – Burden of proof on Auditee
37
![Page 38: 1. 1. OIG Audit 2. A-133 Audit 3. Federal Monitoring 4. State (Pass Through) Monitoring 2.](https://reader038.fdocuments.us/reader038/viewer/2022110405/56649ef15503460f94c01d26/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does
not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries
none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this
presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship
with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel
familiar with your particular circumstances.