Attachment
I
MEETING OF THE REGENTS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AUDITS
January
8, 2007
Subcommittee Members in
Attendance:
Regent Geraldine D. Chapey,
Chair
Regent Joseph E. Bowman, Vice
Chair
Regent Arnold
Gardner
Regent John
Brademas
Other Members of the Board of Regents in
Attendance:
Regent Roger B.
Tilles
Regent Chapey opened the meeting.
Regent Gardner moved to accept the minutes of
the previous meeting and Regent Brademas seconded the
motion.
Discussion
Items
The first item on the agenda was a briefing
on the four sources of audit reports presented to the Regents Subcommittee on
Audits for review.
1.
The Department’s Office of Audit Services (OAS) perform three types of
audits:
·
External audits of USNY institutions,
primarily focused on school districts and BOCES;
·
Internal audits of Department operations;
and
·
Audits of providers of pre-school education
programs. These audits, though issued by OAS, are often conducted by accounting
firms under contract with counties or the NYC Department of
Education.
2.
Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) performs audits through the State
Audit Bureau and Local Government Services and Economic
Development.
The State Audit Bureau performs
several types of audits:
·
Audits of State Education Department
programs and grants;
·
Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) recipients;
and
·
Follow-up audit.
Local Government Services and Economic
Development, formerly Municipal Affairs,
performs:
·
Audits of municipalities of all types;
and
·
Audits of school districts and
BOCES.
3.
U.S. Department of Education – Office of Inspector General conducts
audits of the Department’s administration of federal grant programs as well as
individual school districts’ compliance with grant
requirements.
4.
New York State Federal Single Audit Findings – Any entity expending more
than $500,000 in federal grants must have a Single Audit conducted in accordance
with the Federal Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Circular
A-133.
Regent Gardner asked why the scope of the
school district audits performed by OSC focused on different areas. OSC staff responded that a risk
assessment process is performed looking at the main areas of
accountability. OSC then narrows
the scope to areas of vulnerability or where improvement opportunities exist.
Regent Gardner expressed concern regarding OSC audits of program area audits
since they are not areas of traditional audit focus. OSC staff responded that
they try to determine if a program is accomplishing its purpose, if laws and
regulations are being adhered to, and the accuracy of the program data being
reported.
Action
Item
The second item on the agenda was a briefing
on the updates to the Statement on the Governance Role of a Trustee or Board
Member. The Chancellor and the Commissioner originally issued this document in
November 2001. It provided information for prospective and active board members,
including web links and best practices.
With the event of the new 5-Point Plan, the Department developed
suggested changes to the document including:
- An enhanced section on Duty of
Loyalty/Conflicts of Interest which references sample policy
statements;
- Additional information for board members or
trustees who lack knowledge or experience in fiscal
governance;
- Appendix B “Best Practices for Boards to
Follow” has been updated; and
- Appendix F has been added which outlines
how to report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.
Regent Bowman asked how the document would be
disseminated. The response was that
the document would be posted on the Regents web site and distributed by Deputy
Commissioners. Regent Chapey added
that it would be shared with the School Boards Association and various colleges
and universities. The previous
version was widely disseminated. It
is an excellent resource and, given the present climate, affected entities will
be anxious to receive it.
Regent Bowman commented on the absence of
Pre-K in the Appendix. Staff indicated it would be added to the final version.
Regent Tilles stated he was happy to see the document but would like to see some
stronger language stating someone was watching or overseeing these
activities. Staff indicated that
additional language will be included in the document prior to the vote of the
Full Board.
Submitted for vote “the document would be put
before the Full Board for their approval with the additional language
emphasizing oversight and clarification of the inclusion of
Pre-K.”
Regent Brademas made the motion, Regent
Gardner seconded it and the vote was unanimous.
Discussion
Items
Regent Chapey commented about the volume of
paper the Regents are receiving.
Because of the 2005 NYS Legislature’s School District Financial
Accountability Act (the 5-Point Plan is part of the Act), OSC received funding
for 89 new auditors, and within 5 years, all school districts within the State
will be audited. This will provide
valuable information for schools, universities and other USNY institutions for
follow-up and to track trends.
Regent Bowman requested a listing of new
legislation that pertains to the Subcommittee on Audits to keep them on
point.
Thirty audit reports were presented to the
Subcommittee for review. Regent
Gardner asked for the 3 most serious.
The follow-up audit of Roslyn and the Mount Vernon and Yonkers School
Districts were identified.
The results of the Roslyn audit indicated
that 12 of the 27 recommendations made in the previous audit were fully
implemented; 10 of the 27 were partially implemented; and 5 were not
implemented. Regent Tilles has
spent time in Roslyn recently and he feels they are improving. They are currently seeking a new
Superintendent.
Regent Bowman asked about the OSC audit of
the New York State Education Department’s Use of Technology for Professional
Licensing and Renewal and asked about the Office of Technology (OFT)
Guidebook. Department staff
responded that the OFT Project Management Office published a Guidebook to assist
agencies in implementing project management technology. The Department is in the process of
creating a Project Management Office to begin implementing this process in
information technology projects.
The Guidebook is available on the OFT web site.
Regent Tilles expressed concern about
multiple audits with repeated violations and school board members not bothering
to address the issues. Department
Counsel stated the Commissioner has the authority to remove board members for
willful violations of law or their duty.
We can also withhold State aid payments. A case-by-case analysis is done to
determine if the violation is of legal regulations or best practices. If there is enough evidence we can go to
a hearing and the Commissioner has the final word. A resident can make a complaint or the
Commissioner can initiate the process.
In the past, there have been very plain examples of wrongdoing. We need to see a pattern of behavior
over a period of time.
The Regents were informed that as a result of
the School District Financial Accountability Act, a Corrective Action Plan must
be approved by the school board and submitted for every
audit.
Attachment
II
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule of Findings
and Questioned Costs
March 31, 2006
School
Breakfast Program (10.553)
National
School Lunch Program (10.555)
Special
Milk Program for Children (10.556)
Summer
Food Service Program for Children (10.559)
Adult
Education - State Grant Program (84.002)
Title
1 Grants to Local Educational Agencies (84.010)
Special
Education - Grants to States (84.027)
Special
Education - Preschool Grants (84.173)
Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities - State Grants (84.186)
Twenty-First
Century Community Learning Centers (84.287)
Education
Technology State Grants (84.318)
Reading
First State Grants (84.357)
Improving
Teacher Quality State Grants (84.367)
State
Education Department
Reference:
06-08
Requirement
In accordance with OMB
Circular A-133, a pass-through entity is responsible for (a) Ensuring required
audits are performed within nine months of the end of the subrecipient’s audit
period; (b) Issuing a management decision on audit findings within six months
after receipt of the subrecipient’s audit report; and (c) Ensuring that the
subrecipient takes timely and appropriate corrective action on all audit
findings. In cases of the continued inability or unwillingness of a subrecipient
to have the required audits, the pass-through entity shall take appropriate
action using sanctions.
Finding
As part of their pass-through entity
responsibilities, the Department is responsible for ensuring that subrecipients
receiving at least $500,000 in Federal funds have an audit performed in
accordance with OMB Circular A-133. The A-133 audit report must be submitted
within the earlier of 30 days of the receipt of the auditor’s report or nine
months after the end of the audit period.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule of Findings
and Questioned Costs
March
31, 2006
In
prior fiscal years, the Office of Audit Services (OAS) automated the receipt and
review process of the A-133 reports by using an electronic control log system.
The Department also has procedures in place to remind subrecipients of their
obligation to submit A-133 reports and procedures to follow up on late reports.
A letter is sent to all subrecipients in November stating that the A-133 report must be submitted within
nine months subsequent to the subrecipient’s fiscal year end. Additionally, in
March, a follow up letter is sent to all subrecipients with June fiscal year
ends who have yet to submit the A-133 report, reminding them of their obligation
to submit the report by March 31. The Department also sends out dunning letters
to subrecipients that are past the submission deadline, reminding them that
Federal awards may be suspended if they fail to submit the report. Late reports
are followed up with numerous phone calls and faxes, once again indicating that
aid may be withheld if the reports are not submitted.
During our examination
of the A-133 control log, we noted that 11 out of 752 subrecipients never
submitted their A-133 report and 123 out of 752 subrecipients did not submit
their A-133 report within the nine-month submission deadline. Extensions were granted by cognizant or
oversight Federal agencies to 16 of the 123 subrecipients that did not submit
their A-133 report within nine months. Of the 16 subrecipients who received
extensions, 9 submitted their A-133 report after the approved extension
date. In all cases where A-133
reports were submitted after the due date, the Department withheld Federal
funding in accordance with Section 225(a) of OMB Circular A-133, until the A-133
report was received or an extension to file was received from a cognizant or
oversight Federal agency. For those A-133 reports outstanding, the Department is
currently withholding Federal funding pending receipt of the A-133 report. Additionally, we noted that 90 reports
required corrective action and the Department to issue a management decision
within six months. For ten reports, the Department had not sent the management
decision within the six-month time frame and in eight of the ten reports, the
corrective action plans had not been received by the Department as of October
2006.
A
similar finding was included in the prior year Single Audit Report as finding
05-04 on page 29.
Recommendation
We
recommend that the Department strengthen their procedures to ensure that all
subrecipients that require an audit in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 submit
their audit reports on time, and management decisions are made timely and
incomplete A-133 reporting packages are followed up on.
Related
Noncompliance
Based
on the above, the Department was not in compliance with the above requirement.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March 31, 2006
Questioned
Costs
None
Views
of Responsible Officials
Presented
in the State Agency Corrective Action Plans attached as an appendix to the
Single Audit Report.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule of Findings
and Questioned Costs
March
31, 2006
Rehabilitation
Services - Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126)
State
Education Department
Reference:
06-20
Requirement
Non-Federal
entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered
transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred or whose principals are
suspended or debarred. Covered transactions include procurement contracts for
goods or services equal to or in excess of $100,000 and all nonprocurement
transactions (e.g., subawards to recipients) (34 CFR 85.200).
Finding
The
Department had policies in place to ensure that suspension and debarment
certifications were obtained from all organizations with contracts for $100,000
or more. For multi-year contracts, in prior years, the Rehabilitation Services -
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States program unit obtained a signed
“Required Federal Certification Debarment and Suspension Form.”
During our testwork, we
noted that of the 40 contract files tested, two did not contain a signed
Required Federal Certification Debarment and Suspension Form for the 2005-2006
contract period. Twenty of 40 contract files represented multi-year contracts.
A
similar finding was included in the prior year Single Audit Report as finding
05-21 on page 58.
Recommendation
We
recommend that the Department continue with their implementation of their
corrective action plan.
Related
noncompliance
Based
on the above, the Department was not fully in compliance with this
requirement.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March 31, 2006
Questioned
Costs
None
Views
of Responsible Officials
Presented
in the State Agency Corrective Action Plans attached as an appendix to the
Single Audit Report.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March
31, 2006
Rehabilitation
Services - Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126)
State
Education Department
Reference:
06-21
Requirement
The
State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Agency must determine whether an individual
is eligible for VR services within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 60
days, after the individual has submitted an application for the services unless:
·
Exceptional and
unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the State VR Agency preclude
making an eligibility determination with 60 days and the State agency and the
individual agree to a specific extension of time;
·
The State VR Agency is exploring
an individual’s abilities, capabilities, and capacity to perform in work
situations through trial work experiences in order to determine the eligibility
of the individual or the existence of clear and convincing evidence that the
individual is incapable of benefiting in terms of an employment outcome from VR
services (Section 102(a)(6) of the Act (29 USC 722(a)(6))).
Finding
We reviewed a sample of
40 case files to determine if the eligibility status was determined within the
timetable required. In six of 40
cases tested, the individual’s eligibility was not determined within 60 days and
an eligibility extension was not filed to note a reason for additional time
needed to process the determination.
A similar finding was
included in the prior year’s single audit report as finding 05-20 on page 56.
Recommendation
The Department should strengthen its
procedures over the review of the eligibility of individuals to ensure
compliance with the requirement.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March 31, 2006
Related
Noncompliance
Based
on the above, the Department was not fully in compliance with this requirement.
Questioned
Costs
None
Views
of Responsible Officials
Presented
in the State Agency Corrective Action Plans attached as an appendix to the
Single Audit Report.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March
31, 2006
Rehabilitation
Services - Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126)
State
Education Department
Reference:
06-22
Requirement
The
State Vocation Rehabilitation (VR) Agency must determine whether an individual
is eligible for VR services and that only eligible individuals participated in
the program. An individual is eligible for VR services if the individual (a) has
a physical or mental impairment that, for the individual, constitutes or results
in a substantial impediment to employment; (b) can benefit in terms of an
employment outcome from VR services; and (c) requires VR services to prepare
for, secure, retain, or regain employment (Section 102(a)(1) of the Act (29 USC
722(a)(1))).
Finding
We
reviewed a sample of 40 case files to determine if an individual was eligible
for VR services. In four of 40 cases tested, the individual’s eligibility
determination was not signed or dated by the counselor.
Recommendation
The
Department should strengthen its procedures over the review of the eligibility
of individuals to ensure compliance with the requirement.
Related
Noncompliance
Based
on the above, the Department was not fully in compliance with
requirement.
Questioned
Costs
None
Views
of Responsible Officials
Presented
in the State Agency Corrective Action Plans attached as an appendix to the
Single Audit Report.
STATE
OF NEW YORK
Schedule
of Findings and Questioned Costs
March
31, 2006
Twenty-First
Century Community Learning Centers (84.287)
State
Education Department
Reference:
06-23
Requirement
In
accordance with OMB Circular A-133, a pass-through entity is responsible for
monitoring the subrecipient’s use of Federal awards through site visits or other
means to provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient administers Federal
awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or
grant agreements and that performance goals are achieved.
Finding
The
Department had policies and procedures in place to monitor its subrecipients via
the review and approval of the Local Education Agencies’ (LEA) proposed budgets
and signed assurances.
However,
we noted that there were no site visits or other means to provide reasonable
assurance that the subrecipient administers Federal awards in compliance with
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements and that
performance goals were achieved.
Recommendation
We
recommend that the Department strengthen its policies and procedures to monitor
its subrecipients by performing regular site visits or other means to provide
reasonable assurance that the Department’s subrecipients are administering
Federal awards appropriately.
Related
noncompliance
Based
on the above, the Department was not in compliance with this requirement.
Questioned
Cost
None
Views
of Responsible Officials
Presented
in the State Agency Corrective Action Plans attached as an appendix to the
Single Audit Report.
NEW
YORK STATE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Single
Audit of Federal Programs for
State Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2006
|
State
Agency: |
State Education Department
|
|
Single
Audit Contact: |
Theresa E. Savo
|
|
Title:
|
Deputy Commissioner for the
Office of Management Services |
|
Telephone:
|
(518) 474-2547
|
|
E-mail:
|
tsavo@mail.nysed.gov
|
|
Federal
Program(s) CFDA #(s):
|
School Breakfast Program
(10.553)
National School Lunch Program
(10.555)
Special Milk Program for Children
(10.556)
Summer Food Service Program
for Children (10.559)
Education - State Grant
Program (84.002)
Title 1 Grants to Local
Educational Agencies (84.010)
Special Education - Grants to
States (84.027)
Special Education - Preschool
Grants (84.173)
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities- State Grants (84.186)
Twenty-First Century Community
Learning Centers_(84.287) Education Technology State Grants (84.318)
Reading First State Grants
(84.357)
Improving Teacher Quality
State Grants (84.367) |
|
Audit
Report Reference: |
06 -08
|
I.
Type
of Finding:
[Check one to identify the nature of the particular audit finding.]
Internal
Control with related noncompliance [ X ]
Internal
Control Only (no noncompliance cited) [ ]
Other
reportable noncompliance (Finding Only) [ ]
Questioned
Costs:
None
II.
Summary
of Finding (including any Internal Control Recommendation(s), if
applicable):
As
part of their pass-through entity responsibilities, the Department is
responsible for ensuring that subrecipients receiving at least $500,000 in
Federal funds have an audit performed in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. The
A-133 audit report must be submitted within the earlier of 30 days of the
receipt of the auditor’s report or nine months after the end of the audit
period.
In prior fiscal years,
the Office of Audit Services (OAS) automated the receipt and review process of
the A-133 reports by using an electronic control log system. The Department also
has procedures in place to remind
subrecipients of their
obligation to submit A-133 reports and procedures to follow
up on late reports. A letter is sent to all subrecipients in
November stating that the A-133 report must be submitted within nine months
subsequent to the subrecipient’s fiscal year end. Additionally, in March, a
follow up letter is sent to all subrecipients with June fiscal year ends who
have yet to submit the A-133 report, reminding them of their obligation to
submit the report by March 31. The Department also sends out dunning letters to
subrecipients that are past the submission deadline, reminding them that Federal
awards may be suspended if they fail to submit the report. Late reports are
followed up with numerous phone calls and faxes, once again indicating that aid
may be withheld if the reports are not submitted.
During our
examination of the A-133 control log, we noted that 11 out of 752 subrecipients
never submitted their A-133 report and 123 out of 752 subrecipients did not
submit their A-133 report within the nine-month submission deadline. Extensions were granted by cognizant or
oversight Federal agencies to 16 of the 123 subrecipients that did not submit
their A-133 report within nine months.
Of the 16 subrecipients who received extensions, 9 submitted their A-133
report after the approved extension date.
In all cases where A-133 reports were submitted after the due date, the
Department withheld Federal funding in accordance with Section 225(a) of OMB
Circular A-133, until the A-133 report was received or an extension to file was
received from a cognizant or oversight Federal agency. For those A-133 reports outstanding, the
Department is currently withholding Federal funding pending receipt of the A-133
report. Additionally, we noted that
90 reports required corrective action and the Department to issue a management
decision within six months. For ten reports, the Department had not sent the
management decision within the six-month time frame and in eight of the ten
reports, the corrective action plans had not been received by the Department as
of October 2006.
A similar
finding was included in the prior year Single Audit Report as finding 05-04 on
page 29.
III.
Agency
Response:
The Office
of Audit Services will continue to use its system of notices, dunning letters
and phone calls for those subrecipients who are late in filing and will also
consider
withholding funds, when necessary.
A)
Additional follow up steps will be
taken to ensure that A-133 audit reports are received within the required
deadlines and that actions are taken when A-133 audit reports are not filed within the required
deadlines.
In addition to the procedures already in
place, the following procedures will
or have been implemented:
1) An additional field has been added to the
database used to track A-133 reports that summarizes what actions have been
taken for delinquent A-133 reports.
Reminders will be sent
to agencies whose A-133 audit reports will come due within 60 days and to those
agencies who are past due with their A-133 audit reports. This will be done on an ongoing
basis. It is to be noted that all
school districts and BOCES A-133 reports were received this year. Of the 582
reports due, only two were received more than 10 months after the fiscal
year-end. For these two districts,
federal funding was withheld until receipt of the A-133
report.
2) Nonprofits tend to be more problematic
because there are fewer State laws and regulations that apply to them. Of the 146 reports due, 95 were received
after 9 months of their year-end.
In all cases, federal funding was withheld unless later filing dates were
approved by Federal cognizant or oversight agencies.
For fiscal
years ending in 06, in addition to using the payments to entities by the
Department as a criterion for identifying entities that require an A-133, the
following steps will also be taken:
3) A letter will be sent to all entities
that receive between $100,000 and $499,999 in payments from the Department
requesting that the entities certify that they had less than $500,000 in
expenditures for federal programs.
4) The Department is working with other
State Agencies to determine the total payments from all State Agencies to
identify those entities that received more than $500,000 in payments from New
York State but less than $500,000 from the Department.
5) A download of total federal expenditures
from the Federal Clearinghouse will be done as soon as the information is
available and will be periodically downloaded after that.
B) Management Decisions
There has
been significant improvement in this area.
The database used to track management decisions has been updated and
improved to better track management decisions and procedures have been
established to ensure program offices are consulted to verify the accuracy of
findings. The Department is working hard to ensure that management decisions are
issued in a timely manner.
A monthly report will
be run from the database to determine which management decisions need to be
prepared.
NEW
YORK STATE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
|
|
Single
Audit of Federal Programs for
State Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
2006 |
|
State
Agency: |
New York State Education
Department |
|
Single
Audit Contact: |
Theresa E. Savo
|
|
Title:
|
Deputy Commissioner for the
Office of Management Services
|
Telephone: (518) 474-2547
E-mail: tsavo@mail.nysed.go v
Federal
Program(s) CFDA #(s): Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126)
Audit
Report Reference: 06 –20
I.
Type of Finding: [Check one to identify the nature of the
particular audit finding.]
Internal
Control with related noncompliance [
]
Internal
Control Only (no noncompliance cited) [ ]
Other
reportable noncompliance (Finding Only) [ X ]
Questioned Costs: None
II.
Summary of Finding (including any Internal Control Recommendation(s),
if applicable)
The
Department had policies in place to ensure that suspension and debarment
certifications were obtained from all organizations with contracts for $100,000
or more. For multi-year contracts, in prior years, the Rehabilitation Services -
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States program unit obtained a signed
“Required Federal Certification Debarment and Suspension Form.”
During our
testwork, we noted that of the 40 contract files tested, two did not contain a
signed Required Federal Certification Debarment and Suspension Form for the
2005-2006 contract period. Twenty of 40 contract files represented multi-year
contracts.
A similar
finding was included in the prior year Single Audit Report as finding 05-21 on
page 58.
III.
Agency Response:
The two
files that did not contain a signed form were due to errors. Both organizations are being contacted
and being asked to sign a Debarment and Suspension
form.
NEW
YORK STATE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
|
|
Single
Audit of Federal Programs for
State Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
2006 |
|
State
Agency: |
New
York State Education Department |
|
Single
Audit Contact: |
Theresa
E. Savo |
|
Title:
|
Deputy
Commissioner for the Office of Management Services
|
Telephone:
(518) 474-2547
E-mail:
tsavo@mail.nysed.gov
Federal
Program(s) CFDA #(s): Rehabilitation
Services - Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States (84.126)
Audit
Report Reference: 06 -21
I.
Type
of Finding:
[Check one to identify the nature of the particular audit finding.]
Internal
Control with related noncompliance [X ]
Internal
Control Only (no noncompliance cited) [ ]
Other
reportable noncompliance (Finding Only) [ ]
Questioned
Costs:
None
II.
Summary
of Finding (including any Internal Control Recommendation(s), if
applicable):
We
reviewed a sample of 40 case files to determine if the eligibility status was
determined within the timetable required.
In six of the 40 cases tested, the individual’s eligibility was not
determined within 60 days and an eligibility extension was not filed to note a
reason for additional time needed to process the determination.
A similar
finding was included in the prior year’s single audit report as finding 05-20 on
page 56.
III.
Agency Response:
This finding is based
on an inaccurate understanding of when an application is considered completed,
and when the time frame for the 60 days for determination of Eligibility
commences. Auditors incorrectly used the VESID date stamp date, when initial
application form was received at the District Office, as the “start “ date for
the 60 day Eligibility certification window. The Assistant District Manager
attempted to explain that federal regulations, as reflected in our policy
Section 202.00 Eligibility for Service, TIMELINESS OF ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS
state: “Eligibility will be determined as soon as there is sufficient
information to decide that the person meets or does not meet the requirements
for eligibility. Once sufficient information has been obtained, a
determination of eligibility must be made within 60 calendar days after the
individual has applied for services, unless there are exceptional circumstances
or a trial work experience or extended evaluation is necessary.”
Many
consumers mail in an application form without any accompanying medical
information, which is a requirement for determining eligibility( as stated in
Federal RSA regulation, and in VESID Policy manual under the same Section 202.00 Eligibility for Service, in item V. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY). Therefore,
the “clock” for the 60 day Eligibility determination cannot start until some
form of medical documentation is received by this office, and a complete
application is on hand for evaluation.
It often
requires extensive work (usually performed by the Counselor Assistants) to aid
the consumers in accessing the required medical documentation to be submitted to
us. In the Buffalo District Office,
receipt of the medical materials triggers the case being put in Status 02 by
Counselor Assistant staff. The
Status 02 date, followed by the Eligibility Certification date is the actual
measure of the timeliness of these applications, since the Status 02 date marks
the point at which a complete application is on hand to be evaluated .In the
cases in questions, the following dates then apply:
|
Consumer Name
|
Date of Status 02, Completed
Application |
Date of Eligibility
Certification |
60 day Eligibility Waiver
present |
# of days intervening
|
|
A |
5/26/05
|
5/26/05
|
N/A
|
1
|
|
B |
1/12/06
|
3/15/06
|
No
|
61*
|
|
C |
3/08/06
|
3/10/06
|
N/A
|
2
|
|
D |
3/16/06
|
3/16/06
|
N/A
|
1
|
Thus, 3 of
the 4 cases in category were timely and should not be included in the negative
finding.
*The fourth
case exceeded the limit by one day. However a legal holiday (Martin Luther King
Day) is included in that period, and it is our contention that due to that
circumstance the fourth case should also be considered timely
Two additional cases
were not completed within the 60 day limit, and we agree they should be included
in the error total. Staff training will be conducted to assure compliance with
the sixty day Eligibility Certification
requirement, and supervisory oversight will be utilize as necessary to
ensure compliance.
|
NEW
YORK STATE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN |
|
Single
Audit of Federal Programs for
State
Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2006 |
|
State
Agency: |
New York State Education
Department |
|
Single
Audit Contact: |
Theresa E. Savo
|
|
Title:
|
Deputy Commissioner for the
Office of Management Services
|
Telephone:
(518)
474-2547
E-mail:
tsavo@mail.nysed.gov
Federal Program(s) CFDA
#(s): Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States
(84.126)
Audit Report Reference:
06 –22
I.
Type of Finding: [Check one to identify the nature of the
particular audit finding.]
Internal
Control with related noncompliance [ ]
Internal
Control Only (no noncompliance cited) [ ]
Other
reportable noncompliance (Finding Only) [X]
Questioned
Costs:
None
II.
Summary of Finding (including any Internal Control Recommendation(s),
if applicable):
We
reviewed a sample of 40 case files to determine if an individual was eligible
for VR services. In 4 of the 40 cases tested, the individual’s eligibility
determination was not signed or dated by the counselor.
III.
Agency Response:
In the
course of the audit, 4 cases were encountered where the counselor did not sign
the completed Eligibility certification documentation after it was printed. However, the date of completion of the
Eligibility certification is clearly listed in the Certification case note.
While we agree that there are other record keeping protocols that indicate the
document should be signed, the signature is not a component of the timely
completion of an Eligibility determination, and should not be considered in the
overall error rate for this item.
We will
provide appropriate training and supervisory oversight around signature of
documents, and on the 4 cases listed below; we will have the counselor sign with
the current date, and case note the discrepancy between the completion date and
the signature date.
Please see previous
item re use of correct date (Status 02, Applicant date) as beginning of 60 day
Eligibility time frame. In that context, outcomes are as follows:
Cases requiring
counselor signature:
|
Consumer Name
|
Date of Status 02, Completed
Application |
Date of Eligibility
Certification |
60 day Eligibility Waiver
present |
# of days intervening
|
|
1
|
2/9/06
|
3/22/06
|
yes
|
41
|
|
2 |
4/4/05
|
10/5/05
|
no
|
164
|
|
3
|
9/28/05
|
10/27/05
|
N/A
|
30
|
|
4
|
1/9/06
|
3/31/06
|
yes
|
80 (extension covered by
waiver) |
Thus, for the 4 cases
in this finding, only one case was not in compliance.
NEW
YORK STATE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
Single
Audit of Federal Programs for
State
Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2006
|
State
Agency: |
New York State Education
Department |
|
Single
Audit Contact: |
Theresa E. Savo
|
|
Title:
|
Deputy Commissioner for the
Office of Management Services |
|
Telephone:
|
(518) 474-2547
|
|
E-mail:
|
tsavo@mail.nysed.gov
|
|
Federal
Program(s) CFDA #(s): |
Twenty-First Century Community
Learning Centers (84.287) |
|
Audit
Report Reference: |
06 -23
|
I.
Type of Finding: [Check one to identify the nature of the
particular audit finding.]
Internal
Control with related noncompliance [ ]
Internal
Control Only (no noncompliance cited) [ X ]
Other
reportable noncompliance (Finding Only) [ ]
Questioned
Costs:
None
II.
Summary of Finding (including any Internal Control Recommendation(s),
if applicable):
The
Department had policies and procedures in place to monitor its subrecipients via
the review and approval of the Local Education Agencies’ (LEA) proposed budgets
and signed assurances.
However, we
noted that there were no site visits or other means to provide reasonable
assurance that the subrecipient administers Federal awards in compliance with
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements and that
performance goals were achieved.
III.
Agency Response:
As
identified in the process memo concerning subrecipient monitoring, the State
Education Department (SED) program office in conjunction with regional and
statewide technical assistance centers engages in numerous activities that
provide knowledge and information about program implementation; however, lack of
documentation for such efforts does fail to meet the requirements for
appropriate monitoring as described by the auditors. SED program administrators will
immediately initiate a process to assure that a copy of the Annual Performance
Report (APR) for each Twenty-First Century grantee is included the grantee’s
folder. The APR, which is submitted
through a web-based system developed for the USDOE, includes data on student
achievement and student behavior, as well as on hours of operation, staffing and
activities. In addition, SED
program administrators will immediately create and begin to use appropriate
monitoring documents based upon those used by other NCLB titles. Staff will be
required to make ten formal monitoring visits during the next twelve months, to
record their findings, and to report back to grantees on the results of t
