10 Program, Fiscal Monitoring, and Audit, 2605(b)(10) - Assurance 10

10.1. How do you ensure good fiscal accounting and tracking of funds? Through our Contract Management System, AFFERS, and Federal Payment Management System reconciliation and monthly budget meetings. 10.1a Provide your definitions of the following: Obligation When a fully executed sub-recipient contract is awarded within the allowable obligation period Expenditures Funds that are billed for allowable services under a contract that has been awarded during the allowable obligation period Expenditure timeframe Term of the sub-recipient contract awarded within the allowable obligation period Administrative costs Those functions of a general nature not clearly identified with a particular program. Those functions include planning, budgeting, and accounting, and establishing and directing an agency’s policies, goals, and objectives. Audit Process 10.2. Is your LIHEAP program audited annually under the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A - 133? Yes No 10.2a - if yes, describe your auditor selection process. Washington does not select the auditor; the Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO) assigns a team to complete the audit. The Washington State LIHEAP program is audited on an annual basis by SAO. 10.3. Describe any audit findings of the grant recipient (i.e. State/Tribe/Territory) rising to the level of material weakness or reportable condition cited in the single audits, inspector general reviews, or other government agency reviews from the most recently audited fiscal year. No Findings Finding Type Brief Summary Resolved? Action Taken 1 financial The Department of Commerce improperly charged $492,317 to earmarking requirements for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Yes procedure/policy changes 2 financial The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with period of performance requirements for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program. Yes procedure/policy changes 3 reporting The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with reporting requirements for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Yes procedure/policy changes The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure it filed 4 reporting Yes procedure/policy changes reports required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. 5 other The Department of Commerce did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with federal requirements to ensure subawards for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program are clearly identified as subawards. Yes procedure/policy changes 6 reporting Budget and accounting staff will ensure Module 1 of the LIHEAP Performance Data Form reconciles to the amounts reported on both the Carryover and Reallotment and the SF-425 reports to prevent reporting inconsistencies. Yes training changes 10.4. Audits of Local Administering Agencies What types of annual audit requirements do you have in place for local administering agencies/district offices? Select all that apply. Local agencies/district offices are required to have an annual audit in compliance with Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133 Local agencies/district offices are required to have an annual audit (other than A-133) Local agencies/district offices' A-133 or other independent audits are reviewed by Grant recipient as part of compliance process. Grant recipient conducts fiscal and program monitoring of local agencies/district offices Local agencies and district offices are required to have an annual audit in compliance with Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Monitoring 10.5. Describe your monitoring process for compliance at each level below. Check all that apply. Grant recipients have a policy in place for appropriate separation of duties and internal controls. Internal program review Departmental oversight Secondary review of invoices and payments Other program review mechanisms are in place. Describe: Local Administering Agencies/District Offices: On - site evaluation Annual program review Monitoring through central database Desk reviews Client File Testing/Sampling Other program review mechanisms are in place. Describe: 10.6 Explain, or attach a copy of your local agency monitoring schedule and protocol. Each local agency receives a desk monitoring every year, unless they receive an onsite monitoring visit. On-site monitoring visits are scheduled at least every three years, unless determined to be high risk during the annual sub-recipient risk assessment process. 10.7. Describe how you select local agencies for monitoring reviews. Attach a risk assessment if subrecipients are utilized. Site Visits: Sub-recipients are on a rotating three-year onsite monitoring schedule. Annual risk assessments are performed to determine sub-grantees with a higher level of risk. Those agencies identified will have increased monitoring frequency in accordance with their determined level of risk. Desk Reviews: Sub-recipients that will not receive an onsite monitoring visit during the current program year will receive a desk monitoring review. 10.8. How often is each local agency monitored? Please attach a monitoring schedule if one has been developed. Annually 10.9. How many local agencies are currently on corrective action plans? 0 If any of the above questions require further explanation or clarification that could not be made in the fields provided, attach a document with said explanation here.