I '. -' - , ,"",'.' ,,- . - . 

. . ". US OFFICEOF PERSONNELMANACiEMENT .. 

OFFICE OF THE INSPEc;TQRGENERAL 

.OFFICEQFAUDITS 

Subject: 

..' -I 

'. .. . . '. . 

.--CA{jTION.. . This audil report Ii~s been llistribUled.to Federal officials ",bo are respOnsible Jor th~ adminislJ"alioD \'f the audited program. Tbis audit' 

reportmay centatnpreprtetary d~la which is prolec~ed"yFederai law·(l8 U;S.C. ),)OS);lherefort,whilidhis aiJdilreportis available 

. under the Freedolilofhiforlllalion Arl;caution needste be exerCised before'reJeasiJigtbereflOrtt6Ibegeneralpublic.· '. 
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 

Washington, DC 20415
 

Office of the 

Inspector General 

AUDIT REPORT
 

AUDIT OF THE2005 AND 2006
 

EAST ALABAMA AREA
 

COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS
 

ANNISTON, ALABAMA
 

Report No. 3A-CF-OO-08-032 Date: .January 30, 2009 

Michael R. Esser 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Audits 

www.opm.gov www.usajobs.gov 
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 

Washington, DC 20415
 

Officeof the 

InspectorGeneral 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

AUDIT OF THE 2005 AND 2006
 

EAST ALABAMA AREA
 

COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS
 

ANNISTON, ALABAMA
 

Report No. 3A-CF-OO-08-032 Date: January 20 r 2009 

The Office ofthe Inspector General has completed an audit of the East Alabama Area Combined 

Federal Campaigns (CFC) for 2005 and 2006. The United Way of East Central Alabama, 

located in Anniston, Alabama, served as the Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO) 

during both campaigns. Our main objective was to determine if the East Alabama Area CFC 

was in compliance with Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 950 (5 CFR 950), including 

the responsibilities of both the PCFO and Local Federal Coordinating Committee (LFCC). The 

audit identified four instances of non-compliance with the regulations (5 CFR 950) governing the 

CFC. 

AUDIT GUIDE REVIEW 

• Required Reports Not Submitted or Submitted Untimely by the LFCC 

The LFCC did not submit or submitted late required reports on the 2005 and 2006 CFC 

campaigns, 

BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES 

• Campaign Expenses Charged to the Incorrect Campaign Year 

The PCFO incorrectly charged $1,812 to the 2006 campaign for audit fees related to the 2005 

campaign, 

www.opm.goY www.usajobs.goY 
• PCFO Expense Reimbursement Not Approved by the LFCC 

The LFCC did not review or approve the PCFO's reimbursement of campaign expenses for. 

the 2006 campaign. 

CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 

• One-Time Disbursement Threshold Not Approved by the LFCC 

The LFCC did not determine the one-time disbursement threshold amount or authorize the 

PCFO to make such payments for the 2006 CFC campaign as required by the Federal 

regulations. 

ii 
CONTENTS 

PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
 

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
 

II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METIIODOLOGY 3
 

III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
 

A. AUDIT GUIDE REVIEW 6
 

1. Required Reports Not Submitted or Submitted Untimely by the LFCC 6
 

B. BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES ~.6

1. Campaign Expenses Charged to the Incorrect Campaign Year 6
 

2. PCFO Expense Reimbursement Not Approved by the LFCC 7
 

C. CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 9
 

1. One-Time Disbursement Threshold Not Approved by the LFCC 9
 

IV. MAJOR CONTRlBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 10
 

APPENDIX A (pCFO's response, dated October 27,2008, to the draft audit report.)
 

APPENDIX B (PCFO's response, dated January 12,2009, to the draft audit report.)
 
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
 

Introduction 

This report details the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from our audit of 

the East Alabama Area Combined Federal Campaigns (CFC) for 2005 and 2006. The audit was 

performed by the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG), as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. 

Background 

The CFC is the sole authorized fund-raising drive conducted in Federal installations throughout 

the world. It consists of 278 separate local campaign organizations located throughout the 

United States and including Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Foreign assignments. The 

Office of Combined Federal Campaign Operations (OCFCO) at aPM has the responsibility for 

management ofthe CFC. This includes publishing regulations, memorandums, and other forms 

of guidance to Federal officials and private organizations to ensure that all campaign objectives 

are achieved. 

CFCs are conducted by a Local Federal Coordinating Committee (LFCC) and administered by a 

Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO). The LFCC is responsible for organizing the 

local CFC, deciding on the eligibility oflocal voluntary organizations, selecting and supervising 

the activities ofthe PCFO, and acting upon any problems relating to a voluntary agency's 

noncompliance with the policies and procedures ofthe CFC. The PCFO is responsible for 

training employee key-workers and volunteers; preparing pledge cards and brochures; 

distributing campaign receipts; submitting to an extensive and thorough audit of its CFC 

operations by an Independent Certified Public Accountant (lPA) in accordance with generally 

accepted auditing standards; cooperating fully with OIG audit staff during audits and 

evaluations; responding in a timely and appropriate manner to all inquiries from participating 

organizations, the LFCC, and the Director of OPM; and consulting with federated groups on the 

operation of the local campaign. 

Executive Orders 12353 and 12404 established a system for administering an annual charitable 

solicitation drive among Federal civilian and military employees. Title 5, Code of Federal 

Regulations 950 (5 CFR 950), the regulations governing CFC operations, sets forth ground rules 

under which charitable organizations receive federal employee donations. Compliance with 

these regulations is the responsibility ofthe PCFO and LFCC. Management of the PCFO is also 

responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of intemal controls. 

Our previous audit of the East Alabama Area CFC was completed in 1997 and covered the 1994 

through 1996 campaigns. The audit identified one area of non-compliance, which was 

satisfactorily resolved through the OCFeO. 

The initial results ofour audit were discussed with PCFO officials during an exit conference held 

on June 12,2008. A draft report was provided to the PCFO and the LFCC on 

1
 
September 17,2008, for review and comment. The PCFO's responses to the draft report were 

considered in preparation ofthis final report and are included as Appendices. 

2
 
II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
 

OBJECTIVES
 

The primary purpose ofthe audit ofthe East Alabama Area CFC was to determine compliance 

with 5 CFR 950. Our specific audit objectives for the 2006 campaign were as follows: 

Eligibility 

•	 To determine ifthe charitable organization application process was open for the 

required 30 day period; if applications were appropriately reviewed, evaluated, 

and approved; and ifthe appeals process for rejected applicants was followed. 

Budget and Campaign Expenses 

•	 To determine ifthe PCFO's budget was in accordance with the regulations. 

•	 To determine if expenses charged to the campaign were actual, reasonable, did 

not exceed 110 percent of the approved budget, and were properly allocated. 

Campaign Receipts and Disbursements 

•	 To determine if the total amount of funds received for the campaign, plus interest 

income and less expenses, was properly distributed to the designated 

organizations. 

•	 To determine ifthe total amount of undesignated funds was properly allocated 

and distributed to the various CFC participants. 

PCFO as a Federation 

•	 To determine if the PCFO distributed funds only to member agencies. 

•	 To determine if the PCFO charged its member agencies for expenses in a 

reasonable manner. 

Additionally, our audit objective for the 2005 campaign was: 

Audit Guide Review 

•	 To determine if the IPA completed the Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) as 

outlined in the February 2007 CFC Audit Guide (For Campaigns with Pledges 

$150,000 to $999,999) [CFC Audit Guide] for the 2005 campaign. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. 

The audit covered campaign years 2005 and 2006. The United Way ofEast Central Alabama, 

located in Anniston, Alabama, served as the PCFO during both campaigns. The audit fieldwork 

3
 
was conducted at the PCFO's offices from June 9 through June 13,2008. Additional audit work 

was completed at our Washington, D.C. office. 

The East Alabama Area CFC received campaign pledges, collected campaign receipts, and 

incurred campaign administrative expenses for the 2005 and 2006 campaigns as shown below: 

Campaign Total Total Administrative 

Year Pledges Receipts Expenses 

2005 $430,325 $414,937 $46A30 

2006 $502,477 $469,571 $58,065 

In conducting the audit we relied to varying degrees on computer-generated data. Our review of 

a sample of campaign expenses and supporting data, a sample of pledge card entries, and the 

distribution of campaign contributions and related bank statements verified that the computergenerated data used in conducting the audit was reliable. Nothing else came to our attention 

during our audit testing utilizing the computer-generated data to cause us to doubt its reliability. 

We considered the campaign's internal control structure in planning the audit procedures. We 

gained an understanding of management procedures and controls to the extent necessary to 

achieve our audit objectives. We relied primarily on substantive testing rather than tests of 

internal controls. The audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing 

procedures as we considered necessary to determine compliance with 5 CFR 950 and CFC 

Memorandums. 

In order to determine whether the LFCC and PCFO were in compliance with the CFC eligibility 

regulations, we reviewed the following: 

•	 The public notice to prospective charitable organizations to determine if the LFCC 

.accepted applications from organizations for at least 30 days. 

-The process and procedures for the application evaluation process. 

- Sample eligibility letters to verify they were properly sent by the LFCC. 

- The LFCC's processes and procedures for responding to appeals from organizations. 

in order to address our objectives concerning the budget and campaign expenses, we 

accomplished the following: 

-	 Reviewed the PCFO application and completed the PCFO application checklist. 

-	 Reviewed the PCFO application for the 2006 campaign, a copy of the public notice to 

prospective PCFO's, and LFCC meeting minutes related to the selection ofthe PCFO. 

•	 Traced and reconciled amounts on the PCFO's Schedule of Actual Expenses to the 

PCFO's general ledger. 

- Reviewed supporting documentation for a judgmental sample of 14 actual expenses from 

5 expense accounts (out of 17 expenses accounts). Accounts were selected based on 

nomenclature review, as well as high dollar amounts paid. 

-	 Reviewed the LFCC meeting minutes and verified that the LFCC authorized the PCFO's 

reimbursement of campaign expenses. 

4
 
•	 Compared the budgeted expenses to actual expenses and determined if actual expenses 

exceeded 110 percent ofthe approved budget. 

To determine whether the campaign receipts and disbursements were handled in accordance with 

CFC regulations, we reviewed the following: 

•	 A judgmental sample of 25 out of 2,354 pledge cards (selected by high total dollars 

pledged from the pledge card detail schedule) and compared them to the Pledge Card 

Report and actual pledge cards from the PCFO. 

•	 Cancelled distribution checks to verify that the appropriate amount was distributed in a 

timely manner. 

•	 One-time disbursements to verify that the PCFO properly calculated pledge loss and 

disbursed the funds in accordance with the ceiling amount established by the LFCC. 

•	 The PCFO's most recent listing of outstanding checks to verify that the PCFO was 

following its policy for such checks. 

•	 The Pledge Notification Letters to verify that the PCFO notified the CFe agencies of the 

designated and undesignated amounts due them before the March 15,2006, deadline. 

•	 The donor list letters sent by the PCFO to organizations to verify the letters properly 

notify the organization of the donors who wish to be recognized. 

•	 Forms 1417 provided by the PCFO and the oeFCO to identify material differences. 

•	 The PCFO Distribution Schedule to verify that the monthly disbursements reconcile with 

the PCFO's Campaign Receipts and Disbursements Schedule. 

•	 All bank statements used by the PCFO for the 2006 campaign to verify that the peFO 

was properly accounting for and distributing funds. 

•	 The PCFO's cutoffprocedures and bank statements to verify that funds were allocated to 

the appropriate campaign year. 

•	 The General Designation Options and Undesignated Funds Spreadsheet and the 

Allocations and Disbursements Spreadsheet to verify whether the disbursements were 

accurate and proportionate to the PCFO's allocation rates. 

To determine ifthe PCFO was in compliance with the CFC regulations asa federation (The 

United Way of East Central Alabama), we reviewed the following: 

•	 Data reported on the CFC Receipts Schedule with supporting documentation to verify if 

the receipts were properly recorded. 

•	 The CFC Distribution Schedule to determine ifthe United Way of East Central Alabama 

disbursed funds to member agencies not participating in the 2006 CFC. 

•	 The United Way ofEast Central Alabama contract with its member agencies to determine 

if the fees were reasonable and supported. 

The samples selected and reviewed above were not statistically based. Consequently, the results 

could not be projected to the universe since it is unlikely that the results are representative of the 

universe taken as a whole. 

Finally, to accomplish our objective for the Audit Guide Review, we reviewed the CFC Audit 

Guide and determined the type of audit to be completed by the IPA for the 2005 campaign. We 

also completed the AUP checklist to verify ifthe IPA completed and documented the AUP steps. 

5
 
III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
 

The PCFO and LFCC administered the 2005 and 2006 East Alabama Area CFCs in compliance 

with all applicable CFC regulations with the exception of the following areas. 

A. AUDIT GUIDE REVIEW 

1. Required Reports Not Submitted or Submitted Untimely by LFCC 

The LFCC did not submit or was late in submitting required reports related to the 

2005 and 2006 campaigns. 

According to the CFC Audit Guide, Chapter I, PCFO, LFCC and IPA Reporting 

Responsibilities, the LFCC was required to submit the PCFO's most recent 

organization-wide financial statements, the LFCC Compliance Assessment for the 

2006 campaign, and AUPs and the related corrective action plan, if applicable, for the 

2005 campaign to OPM by September 15,2007. 

We requested these documents from the OCFCO and reviewed them to determine 

whether they were submitted by the required deadline. Our review showed that the 

LFCC: 

•	 Did not submit the PCFO organization-wide financial statements to OPM; 

•	 submitted the LFCC Compliance Assessment for the 2006 Campaign to 

OPM on September 21,2007,6 days late, and; 

•	 submitted the AUPs for the 2005 campaign to aPM on September 21, 

2007, 6 days late. 

PCFO's Comments: 

The PCFO agrees with this finding. They stated that in the future, the LFCC will 

make every effort to submit the required reports on time. 

Recommendation 1 

We recommend that the OCFCO and PCFO work with the LFCC to ensure that it 

provides the required reports by the due date as set forth in the CFC Audit Guide. 

B. BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES 

1. Campaign Expenses Charged to the Incorrect Campaign Year $1,812 

The PCFO incorrectly charged the 2006 campaign $1,812 for audit fees related to the 

AUPs for the 2005 campaign. 

6
 
According to 5 CFR 950.1 06 (b) "The PCFO may only recover campaign expenses 

from receipts collected for that campaign year." 

We reviewed the 2006 campaign expenses to determine ifthe expenses were charged 

to the correct campaign year. We determined that the PCFO received and paid three 

invoices, totaling $1,812, from its IPA for AUPs performed for the 2005 campaign. 

Based on our review, we determined that the PCFO incorrectly charged the 2006 

campaign for expenses that should have been charged to the 2005 campaign. 

Application of a 2005 expense to the 2006 campaign is inappropriate because 

campaigns should only incur expenses related to that year's campaign. 

Additionally, application of expenses to the incorrect campaign year will adversely 

effect the net designations due to the charities and result in the wishes ofthe CFC 

donors not being fully realized, and may result in future difficulty in tracing expenses 

from previous campaigns. 

PCFO's Comments: 

The PCFO agrees with the finding and stated that it would begin setting aside monies 

in an escrow account to be used to cover the cost associated with the IPA's review 

and AUPs. 

Recommendation 2 

We recommend that the OCFCO and LFCC verify that the PCFO has put procedures 

in place to ensure that expenses are charged tothe campaign year they are related to. 

2. PCFO Expense Reimbursement Not Approved by the LFCC 

The LFCC did not review or approve the $58,065 in 2006 campaign expenses prior to 

the PCFO's reimbursement. . 

5 CFR 950.1 04(b)( 17) states that the LFCC is responsible for "Authorizing to the 

PCFO reimbursement of only those campaign expenses that are legitimate CFC costs 

and are adequately documented. Total reimbursable expenses may not exceed the 

approved campaign budget by more than 10 percent." This provision is a control 

designed to help ensure that the PCFO reimburses itself for only appropriate and 

supportable expenses. Furthermore, 5 CFR 950.106(a) states that the PCFO is to 

recover expenses that reflect the actual cost of administering the campaign and are 

approved by the LFCC. 

Our review ofthe LFCC meeting minutes did not identify where the LFCC reviewed 

the PCFO reimbursement request or authorized the PCFO to reimburse itself $58,065 

for the expenses it incurred for the 2006 campaign. In addition, the PCFO was unable 

to provide any other documentation showing that the LFCC authorized the 

reimbursement. 

7 
As a result, we concluded that the LFCC did not review the 2006 campaign expenses 

nor approve the reimbursement expenses to ensure that the expenses were appropriate 

and were not more that 110 percent of the approved budget. 

PCFO's Comments: 

The PCFO disagrees with the finding and stated that on April 10, 2007 it discussed . 

the 2006 campaign's expenses and reviewed actual expenses against the budget with 

the LFCC chairperson, and that it was determined that the actual expenses were in 

line with the budget. As a result, the LFCC chairperson agreed to approve the 

expenses and a check was written to cover the campaign expenses on April 13, 2007. 

On April 24, 2007, the regular LFCC meeting was held and the expenses were again 

reviewed against the budget and a vote approving the reimbursement was taken. 

OIG Comments: 

Based on the LFCC meeting minutes provided with their response, the PCFO is 

correct that the reimbursement was approved on April 24, 2007. However, the 

physical reimbursement ofthese expenses was made on April 13,2007 11 days prior 

to the approval. This is not a correct application of the "approval" process. The 

approval of one member of the LFCC, even the chairperson, does not substantiate 

approval of the entire LFCC. Proper approval should be obtained prior to the 

reimbursement of costs. 

Furthermore, review of the meeting minutes determined that the LFCC did not review 

the expenses to determine ifthey were "legitimate CFC costs" and were "adequately 

documented." The meeting minutes state the following: 

'_explained that the budget was $56,315 however expenses totaled 

$58,065.20 which is 8.9% over the approved budget. OPM allows for the 

PCFO to be reimbursed up to 10% over the approved budget therefore on the 

motion of and second of the United Way 

will be reimbursed the total expenses." 

Based upon the meeting minutes and the PCFO's explanation, the only review by the 

LFCC was to determine that the expenses did not exceed the budget by 10 percent. It 

is the responsibility ofthe LFCC to ensure that the expenses charged to the CFC are 

legitimate and adequately documented; if that is not the case, they are not to be 

approved for reimbursement. 

Recommendation 3 

We recommend that the OCFCO ensure that the LFCC review the campaign expenses 

before reimbursement to the PCFO, and that its basis for the approval is fully 

explained and appropriately documented in the LFCC meeting minutes. 

8
 
Recommendation 4 

We recommend that the OCFCO ensure that the PCFO obtains the approval ofthe 

LFCC prior to the reimbursement of campaign expenses. 

C. CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 

1. One-Time Disbursement Threshold Not Approved by the LFCC 

The LFCC did not determine the one-time disbursement threshold amount or 

authorize the PCFO to make such payments for the 2006 CFC campaign as required 

by the Federal regulations. 

5 CFR 950.901 (i) (3) states that the "PCFO may make one-time disbursements to 

organizations receiving minimal donations from Federal employees. The LFCC must 

determine and authorize the amount of these one-time disbursements." 

We reviewed the LFCC meeting minutes to determine if the LFCC determined the 

amount of (i.e., threshold amount) and authorized one-time disbursements for the 

2006 campaign. As a result ofour review, we found that the LFCC did not set the 

one-time disbursement threshold nor authorize the one-time disbursement. 

The PCFO informed us at the exit conference that it was not aware that the LFCC had 

to approve the threshold for one-time disbursements for each campaign. Instead it 

used a $500 threshold that was established a number of years ago. 

To comply with the regulation for future campaigns, the LFCC and PCFO should 

establish a one-time payment amount for each campaign year, and clearly document 

.its approval and the criteria the PCFO is to use to calculate the threshold amount. 

PCFO's Comments: 

The PCFO agrees with this finding and stated that in the future the LFCC will set the 

threshold annually for each campaign. 

Recommendation 5 

We recommend that the OCFCO verify that procedures have been put in place that 

ensure that the LFCC properly sets the one-time disbursement threshold amount and 

authorizes one-time disbursements for each campaign year. 

9
 
IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Special Audits Group 

Auditor-In-Charge 

Auditor 

Group Chief 

Senior Team Leader 

10
 
APPENDIX A
 

October 27,2008 'United Way~ Office of Personnel Management 

Office of Inspector General 

" 

what matters. TM 

fM 

Attention: 

1900 E Street, N.W., Room 6400 

Washington, DC 20415-1100 

The East Central Alabama Combined Federal Campaign agrees with the finding under 

A.l. Required Reports Not Submitted or Untimely Submitted by the LFCC, in that 

the reports were submitted late. In the future, the LFCC will make every effort to submit 

required reports on time. 

The East Central Alabama Combined Federal Campaign disagrees with the finding under 

B.l. Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO) Expense Reimbursement not 

Approved by the LFCC. Attached are the April 24, 2007 minutes ofthe LFCC which 

show that this reimbursement was approved.. Also attached are the February 22,2006 

minutes ofthe LFCC showing that year's reimbursement was approved. 

The East Central Alabama Combined Federal Campaign agrees with the finding under 

B.2. Inappropriate Reimbursement for Audit Fees. The fee of$I,811 was charged to 

the 2006 campaign because the 2005 campaign and all its disbursements were required to 

be closed out prior to AUP. Attached is the method that will be used in the future to 

reimburse fees required for AUF. 

The East Central Alabama Combined Federal Campaign agrees with the finding under 

C.l. One Time Distribution Threshold Not Approved by LFCC. In the future LFCC 

will follow Recommendation 5 by setting this threshold annually for each campaign. 

If you need further clarification, please contact me. Thanks for your assistance with this 

matter. 

United Way of East Central Alabama
 

P.O. Box 1122 • 1505 Wilmer Avenue • Anniston, Alabama 36202-1122 

(?<;h\ ?1.h-A??Q • (Ann\ .dO.d.?':lR? • S::"v I')<:;&;.\ ?'l;I':_')'l;<:;&;' ••0"0"" "nil,:..·.j,.,.,.",.........""1 ....rro
 
APPENDIXB
 

-

On April 10, 2007 United Way of East Central Alabama as PCFO discussed campaign expenses, 

reviewed actual expenses against budqeted, with the LFCC chairperson. We determined after a review 

that the actual expenses were in line with the budget and the LFCC chairperson agreed to approve the 

expenses in order that a check could be written to cover the actual.expenses. A check was written on 

April 13, 2007 to cover the actual expenses of the campaign. On April 24, 2007 during the monthly LFCC 

meeting the campaign expenses were reviewed against the budget and a vote to approve the decision for 

reimbursement was taken. The LFCC approved the reimbursement. 

Thanks for your assistance. 

Executive Director
 

United Way of East Central Alabama