u.s. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OFFICE OF AUDITS 

Final Audit Report 

Subject: 

AUDIT OF THE 2007 AND 2008 


CHAMBERSBURG AREA 


COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS 


CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYL VANIA 


Report No. 3A-CF-OO-IO-033 

Date: January 25 2° 11 

·-CAUTlON--

TII.s audit report hu h« n distributed to Federal offICials who arc rrsp.::msiblc for the admiRi5lralion of the audited program. Til,! audit 

report may (onllin proprietary data which i5 protected by Federal law (i3ll.S.C. '?OS). Tlierdorc, lIo'hilc Ihisaudil rtp4)n iJ anllabk 

ullder Iht F"~om of Information AN and mlldf . ...illlbic 10 tht public on the OIG w( bpage. uution nerdl 10 be curcistd Mfo" 

rdusing Ihe reporl to lhe ~nn-al puhlic IS II may conl~ill pt"opridary information thllt was redacted from I.c publk ly distributed copy. 
Office of 1M 

~Of Gcnernl 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Washington, DC 204 15 

AUDIT REPORT 

AUDIT OF THE 2007 AND 2008 


CHAMBERSBURG AREA 


COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS 


CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 


Report No. 3A·CF-OO·\O-033 Date: January 25 ! 201 1 

Michael R. Esser 

Assistant Inspector General 

for Audits 

w.. .-::::-:;;::-o~m . 

'" - --~--.~- ------~ 

w",w.unJobl.'OV 
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 


Washington. DC 2041 5 


Ollice of the 

Inspel:tor Gener,t1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 


AUDIT OF THE 2007 AND 2008 


CHAMBERSBURG AREA 


COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS 


CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYL VANIA 


Report No_ 3A-CF-OO-IO-033 Date: ,January 25, 2011 

The Office ofthe Inspector General has completed an audit of the 2007 and 2008 Chambersburg 

Area Combined Federal Campaigns (CFe). The United Way of Franklin County,located in 

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, served as the Principal Combined Fund Organization (PCFO) 

during both campaigns. Our main objective was to detennine if the Chambersburg Area CFe 

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 13 instances of non-compliance with the regulations (5 CFR 950) governing the 

CFC. 

The foHowing findings represent the results of our audit work as ofthe date ofthis report. 

AUDIT GUIDE REVIEW 

Our review ofthe agreed-upon procedures, as performed by the PCFO's Independent Public 

Accountant, did not identify any instances of non-compliance with the CFC Audit Guide. 

BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES 

• LFCC Meeting Minutes Not Maintained 

The LFCC did not maintain meeting minutes or any other record ofits discussions and 

decisions dealing with the 2008 CFC. 

w"'''.o pm.'oy 
• 	 PCFO's Application Contains Incomplete Language 

The PCFO's application, accepted by the LFCC, did not include specific language required 

by the Federal regulations. 

• 	 Approval of Campaign Expenses and Reimbursement 

The PCFO did not request approval from the LFCC before reimbursing itself for 2008 

campaign expenses. Consequently, the LFCC did not review or approve the PCFO's 

reimbursement ofthese expenses. 

• 	 Estimated Expenses 

The PCFO charged estimated expenses to the 2008 CFC campaign. 

• 	 Duplicate Expense Charge 

The PCFO charged the 2008 campaign twice for $150 in award certificates. 

• 	 2006 Expense Charged to the 2008 Campaign 

The PCFO incorrectly charged the 2008 campaign for audit fees related to the 2006 

campaIgn. 


CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 


• 	 Notification of Designated and Undesignated Amounts 

The PCFO did not notify agencies and federations ofthe 2008 CFC amounts due to them by 

the date set in OPM's 2008/2009 Calendar of Events. 

• 	 Deadline for Campaign Disbursements 

The PCFO did not begin disbursement ofthe 2008 campaign funds by the April 1, 2009 

deadline, as specified in the Federal regulations. 

• 	 Maintaining Interest-Bearing Bank Accounts 

The PCFO did not obtain approval from the Combined Federal Campaign Operations to 

maintain CFC funds in a non-interest bearing bank account for the 2008 campaign. 

• 	 Policies and Procedures for Uncashed Checks 

The PCFO did not have written policies and procedures for uncashed checks. Consequently, 

the PCFO did not document its follow-up attempts to reach payees for uncashed checks that 

are over six months old. 

ii 
• Cut-Off Procedures for CFC Receipts 

The PCFO did not maintain proper cut-off procedures when recording CFC receipts between 

campaign years. As a result, the PCFO disbursed $302 to the member agencies of the 2008 

campaign in excess ofthe monies received. 

ELIGIBILITY 

• Eligibility Review of Local Organizations 

The LFCC did not provide documentation to support that it reviewed all ofthe eligibility 

requirements, as specified by the Federal regulations, for organizations that applied to 

participate in the local campaign. 

• Deadline to Issue Notice of Eligibility Decisions 

The LFCC did not issue notice ofits eligibility decisions within 15 business days ofthe 

closing date for receipt of applications. The closing date for the 2008 campaign was 

March 3, 2008. 

PCFO AS A FEDERATION 

Our review ofthe PCFO's activities as a federation showed that it complied with the applicable 

provisions of 5 CFR 950. 

111 
CONTENTS 


PAGE 

EXECUTIVE SlTMMARY ............................................................................................. i 


I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................... 1 


II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................2 


III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................6 


A. AlTDIT GUIDE REVIEW .....................................................................................6 


B. BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES ..........................................................6 


1. LFCC Meeting Minutes Not Maintained .........................................................6 


2. PCFO's Application Contains Incomplete Language ......................................7 


3. Approval of Campaign Expenses and Reimbursement.. .................................. 8 


4. Estimated Expenses ..........................................................................................9 


5. Duplicate Expense Charge .............................................................................. 10 


6. 2006 Expense Charged to the 2008 Campaign ............................................... 11 


C. CAMP AIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS .......................................... 12 


1. Notification of Designated and Undesignated Amounts ................................ 12 


2. Deadline for Campaign Disbursements .......................................................... 13 


3. Maintaining Interest-Bearing Bank Accounts ................................................ 13 


4. Policies and Procedures for Uncashed Checks ............................................... 14 


5. Cut-Off Procedures for CFC Receipts ............................................................ 15 


D. ELIGIBILITY ....................................................................................................... 16 


1. Eligibility Review of Local Organizations ..................................................... 16 


2. Deadline to Issue Notice of Eligibility Decisions ........................................... 17 


E. PCFO AS A FEDERATION ................................................................................ 17 


IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT .......................................................... 18 


APPENDIX 	 (The PCFO and LFCC's response, dated October 5,2010, to the draft 

audit report.) 
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 


INTRODUCTION 


This report details the findings and conclusions resulting from our audit ofthe Chambersburg 

Area Combined Federal Campaigns (CFC) for 2007 and 2008. 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 242 separate local campaign organizations located throughout the 

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

Combined Federal Campaign Operations (CFCO) at OPM has the responsibility for management 

of the CFC. This includes publishing regulations, memorandums, and other forms of guidance to 

Federal offices and private organizations to ensure that all campaign objectives are achieved. 

CFC's 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, determining the eligibility of local voluntary organizations, selecting and supervising 

the activities of the 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 ofOPM; and consulting with federated groups on the 

operation of the local campaign. 

Executive Orders No. 12353 and No. 12404 established a system for administering an annual 

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

Federal Regulations Part 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 of the PCFO and LFCC. Management of 

the PCFO is also responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal controls. 

All findings from our previous audit of the Chambersburg Area CFC (Report Number 2A-CF04-91-E3, dated November 25, 1991), covering the 1990 campaign year, have been satisfactorily 

resolved. 

The initial results of our audit were discussed with PCFO and LFCC officials during an exit 

conference held on May 21,2010. A draft report was provided to the PCFO and the LFCC on 

September 7, 2010, for review and comment. The PCFO and LFCC's response to the draft 

report was considered in preparation of this final report and is included as an Appendix. 

1 

II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 


OBJECTIVES 

The primary purpose of our audit was to determine ifthe Chambersburg Area CFC was in 

compliance with 5 CFR 950, including the activities of both the PCFO and LFCC. Our audit 

objective for the 2007 campaign was: 

Audit Guide Review 

• 	 To determine ifthe IPA completed the Agreed-Upon Procedures (AUP) as outlined in the 

CFC Audit Guide (For Campaigns with Pledges Less Than $150,000). 

Additionally, our specific audit objectives for the 2008 campaign were as follows: 

Budget and Campaign Expenses 

• 	 To determine ifthe PCFO solicitation, application, campaign plan, and budget were in 

accordance with the regulations. 

• 	 To determine ifthe expenses charged to the campaign were actual, reasonable, allocated 

properly, approved by the LFCC, and did not exceed 110 percent of the approved budget. 

Campaign Receipts and Disbursements 

• 	 To determine ifthe pledge card format was correct and ifthe pledge card report agrees 

with the actual pledge cards. 

• 	 To determine if incoming pledge monies were allocated to the proper campaign year and 

that the net funds (less expenses) were properly distributed to member agencies and 

federations. 

• 	 To determine ifthe member agencies and federations were properly notified of the 

amounts pledged to them and that donor personal information was only released for those 

who requested the release of information. 

Eligibility 

• 	 To determine ifthe charity list (CFC brochure) was properly formatted and contained the 

required information; if the charitable organization application process was open for the 

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

approved; if the applicants were notified ofthe eligibility decisions timely; and ifthe 

appeals process for denied applications was followed. 

PCFO as a Federation 

• 	 To determine ifthe amounts received by the PCFO as a federation reconciled to those 

disbursed by the CFC; if the PCFO properly distributed funds to its federation members; 

if expenses charged by the PCFO (to its federation members) were documented properly; 

and ifthe disbursements made to the federation members were accurate. 

2 

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 2007 and 2008. The United Way of Franklin County, located 

in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, served as the PCFO during both campaigns. The audit 

fieldwork was conducted at the offices of the PCFO from May 17 through May 21, 2010. 

Additional audit work was completed at our Washington, D.C. and Cranberry, Pennsylvania 

offices. 

The Chambersburg Area CFC received campaign pledges, collected campaign receipts, and 

incurred campaign administrative expenses for the 2007 and 2008 campaigns as shown below: 

Campaign Total Total Administrative 

Year Pledges Receipts Expenses 

2007 $67,146 $56,413 $11,853 

2008 $71,215 $64,307 $10,421 

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 came to our attention during 

our review ofthe 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 ofthe 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 tests of accounting records and such other auditing 

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

Memorandums. 

To accomplish our objective for the Audit Guide Review, we reviewed the CFC Audit Guide (for 

campaigns with pledges less than $150,000) and completed the AUP checklist to verify that the 

IP A completed and documented the AUP steps. 

In regard to our objectives concerning the 2008 campaign's budget and campaign expenses, we 

accomplished the following: 

• 	 Reviewed the PCFO application to verify if it was complete. 

• 	 Reviewed a copy of the public notice to prospective PCFOs and LFCC meeting minutes 

to verify that the PCFO was selected timely. 

3 

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

PCFO's general ledger. 

• 	 Reviewed the PCFO's budgeted expenses, the LFCC's approval ofthe budget, and 

matched a sample of actual expenses to supporting documentation. We judgmentally 

selected all expenses, except for two low dollar expenses, amounting to a sample total of 

$10,370 out ofa universe of $10,421. 

• 	 Reviewed the LFCC meeting minutes and verified if the LFCC authorized the PCFO's 

reimbursement of campaign expenses. 

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

exceeded 110 percent of the approved budget. 

To determine if the 2008 campaign's receipts and disbursements were handled in accordance 

with CFC regulations, we reviewed the following: 

• 	 A judgmental sample of pledge cards from the 2008 PCFO's Donor Pledge Campaign 

Report and compared the pledge information from the report to the actual pledge cards. 

We judgmentally selected the top 25 pledge cards with the highest amounts pledged, 

totaling $24,124 from a universe of365 pledge cards totaling of$71,215. 

• 	 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 CFC agencies ofthe 

designated and undesignated amounts due them by the date required in the regulations. 

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

notify the organization ofthe donors who wish to be recognized. 

• 	 CFC receipts and distributions from the PCFO's campaign bank statements, campaign 

receipts, and agency disbursements and campaign expense support to verify whether the 

PCFO accurately recorded and disbursed all 2008 campaign receipts and disbursements. 

• 	 All bank statements used by the PCFO to verify that the PCFO was properly accounting 

for and distributing funds. 

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

the appropriate campaign year. 

• 	 The Gen~ral Designation Options and Undesignated Funds Spreadsheet and the 

Allocations and Disbursements Spreadsheet to verify disbursements were accurate and 

proportionate to the PCFO's allocation rates. 

To determine ifthe LFCC and PCFO were in compliance with CFC regulations in regards to 

eligibility for the 2008 campaign, we reviewed the following: 

• 	 The public notice to prospective charitable organizations to determine ifthe 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. 

4 

Finally, to detennine if the PCFO was in compliance with the CFC regulations as a federation 

(United Way of Franklin County) for the 2008 campaign, we reviewed the following: 

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

whether receipts were properly recorded. 

• 	 The CFC Distribution Schedule to ensure that United Way of Franklin County did not 

disburse any funds to member agencies not participating in the CFC. 

• 	 The United Way of Franklin County's contract with its member agencies to detennine if 

the fees were reasonable and supported. 

The samples mentioned above, that were selected and reviewed in perfonning the audit, were not 

statistically based. Consequently, the results could not be projected to the universe since it is 

unlikely that the results are representative ofthe universe taken as a whole. 

5 

III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 


A. AUDIT GUIDE REVIEW 


Our review ofthe agreed-upon procedures, as performed by the PCFO's Independent 

Public Accountant, did not identify any instances of non-compliance with the CFC Audit 

Guide. 

B. BUDGET AND CAMPAIGN EXPENSES 

1. LFCC Meeting Minutes Not Maintained 

The LFCC did not maintain meeting minutes or any other record of its discussions 

and decisions dealing with the 2008 CFC, including a performance review prior to a 

multi-year agreement, eligibility decisions, PCFO budget approval, and approval of 

the PCFO's reimbursement of campaign expenses. 

In accordance with 5 CFR 950.1 04 (b) (1), the LFCC responsibilities include 

maintaining minutes ofLFCC meetings and responding promptly to any request for 

information from the Director. 

We requested the PCFO and LFCC to submit all minutes from CFC meetings dealing 

with the 2008 campaign including any attachments, emails, and/or handouts. 

According to the PCFO, the LFCC did not maintain meeting minutes or any other 

records of its discussions with the PCFO pertaining to the 2008 CFC. The PCFO 

acknowledged this was an oversight as most discussions between the PCFO and 

LFCC were conducted on the phone and campaign business was "self-managed", 

meaning that campaign tasks and duties were autonomously carried out by the PCFO 

andLFCC. 

By not maintaining meeting minutes of its discussions and decisions related to CFC 

business, the I ... FCC lacks accountability and documentation ofthe reasoning for its 

final decisions. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The LFCC has begun maintaining 

minutes of each committee meeting and now records the attendance, actions, and 

decisions from those meetings. 

The LFCC also appointed a new Campaign Chair to the committee that will work on 

the 2010 and 2011 campaigns and build a plan for the continued commitment of 

committee members and the succession of campaign leadership. 

6 

In addition, the LFCC has set up bi-monthly meetings with designated times and 

locations to ensure that the committee follows a plan to keep campaign activities on 

track. 

Recommendation 1 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the LFCC understands its responsibilities 

under regulation 5 CFR 950.104 (b) (1) and maintains minutes of its meetings for 

future campaigns. 

2. PCFO's Application Contains Incomplete Language 

The PCFO's application, accepted by the LFCC, did not include specific language 

required by the Federal regulations. 

5 CFR 950.1 05 (c) (2) (iii) requires that the applicant sign a pledge to lIabide by the 

directions, decisions, and supervision ofthe LFCC and/or Director." According to 5 

CFR 950.101, IIDirecfor means the Director ofthe Office of Personnel Management 

or hislher designee." Additionally, 5 CFR 950.105 (c) (2) (i) requires "A statement 

signed by the applicant's local director or equivalent pledging to ... administer the CFC 

fairly and equitably. II 

We reviewed the PCFO's application to determine if it was in compliance with CFC 

regulations. From our review, we determined that the PCFO's statement was missing 

a pledge to administer the CFC equitably and to abide by the directions, decisions, 

and supervision of the LFCC and/or Director. Instead, the statement read, "The 

United Way pledges to fairly administer the CFC, abiding by all regulations to the 

extent that we are aware of such regulations as posted on a timely manner and further 

promises to conduct all affairs ofthe CFC separately from the United Way's own 

campaign operations. Additionally, I fully understand that we are subject to decisions 

and supervision ofthe Local Federal Coordinating Committee." 

By neither acknowledging nor accepting all responsibilities required by the Federal 

regulations in administering an efficient and effective campaign, the PCFO 

jeopardizes the ability ofthe CFC to operate properly from the start. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. Beginning with the 2011 campaign 

year, all future applications will contain correct language as directed by the CFC 

regulations. As an effort of good faith, the PCFO resubmitted its request and budget 

for the 2010 campaign with the corrected language. 

7 

Recommendation 2 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the PCFO's amended application reflects 

the proper language required by 5 CFR 950.105 (c) (2) and that the LFCC verifies the 

correct language is being used prior to approving PCFO applications in the future. 

3. Approval of Campaign Expenses and Reimbursement 

Based on a discussion with the PCFO, we determined that the PCFO did not request 

approval from the LFCC before reimbursing itself for 2008 campaign expenses. 

Consequently, the LFCC did not approve the actual campaign expenses and did not 

authorize the PCFO's reimbursement of these campaign expenses. 

In accordance with 5 CFR 950.106 (a), "The PCFO shall recover from the gross 

receipts ofthe campaign its expenses, approved by the LFCC, reflecting the actual 

costs of administrating the local campaign." Furthermore,S CFR 950.1 04 (b) (17) 

holds the LFCC responsible for "Authorizing to the PCFO reimbursement of only 

those campaign expenses that are legitimate CFC costs and are adequately 

documented." This regulation is a control designed to help ensure that the PCFO 

reimburses itself for only appropriate and supportable expenses. 

According to the PCFO, the actual campaign expenses were not submitted to the 

LFCC for approval because the PCFO believed that the approved budget was 

sufficient approval for reimbursement of expenses. The PCFO commented that 

unless there is a big change in the budget and/or expenses, the PCFO will not request 

the LFCC's approval for campaign expense reimbursement. 

As a result ofthe LFCC not reviewing and approving the actual 2008 campaign 

expenses, the PCFO may have been reimbursed for expenses that were not related to 

the CFC. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The LFCC Chair has met with the 

PCFO, and together, they have developed plans for the LFCC committee to meet 

prior to the reimbursement of expenses for the campaign and formally review all 

expenses at the January 2011 board meeting to ensure that the expenses are approved 

before reimbursement. 

As part of this process, the LFCC Chair will ensure that meeting minutes reflect the 

review and approval of campaign expenses from the just completed campaign in 

January 2011 and all subsequent campaigns. 

Additionally, the PCFO and the LFCC Chair reviewed the CFC regulations to ensure 

that both parties understand the responsibilities that relate to campaign expenses and 

reimbursement of those expenses. The LFCC will receive training related to all 

8 

LFCC responsibilities, prior to the review ofPCFO expenses at the January LFCC 

meeting. 

Recommendation 3 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the PCFO understands that it must submit 

actual expenses to the LFCC for approval prior to reimbursement. 

Recommendation 4 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the LFCC reviews, approves, and 

documents its authorization ofthe PCFO's reimbursement for campaign expenses. 

4. Estimated Expenses 

The PCFO charged estimated expenses to the 2008 CFC campaign. 

According to 5 CFR 950.105 (3 ) (d) (7), the PCFO is responsible for "Maintaining a 

detailed schedule of its actual CFC administrative expenses with, to the extent 

possible, itemized receipts for the expenses. The expense schedule must be in a 

format that can be reconciled to the PCFO's budget .... " Furthermore, 5 CFR 950.106 

(a) states "The PCFO shall recover from the gross receipts ofthe campaign its 

expenses, approved by the LFCC, reflecting the actual costs of administering the local 

campaign." 

As part of its proposed budget, the PCFO included an amount totaling $4,500 for 

campaign administration. This same amount was also included as an actual expense 

charged to the 2008 campaign. Consequently, we requested supporting 

documentation to determine if the $4,500 amount was CFC related, allocated in a fair 

or reasonable method, and allocated based on actual expenses. According to the 

PCFO, the administration expense of $4,500 is based on a time study that estimated 

the hours spent by the PCFO staff working on the CFC four to five years ago. The 

PCFO could not provide documentation to support this time study. 

Without a detailed schedule of actual time spent working on the CFC, the PCFO 

could overestimate the administrative expenses being charged to the campaign, 

thereby reducing the funds due to agencies and federations. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. In 2010, the PCFO began maintaining 

records of administrative time spent toward the CFC campaign. This will ensure that 

future campaign years' proposed budgets will reflect a more accurate picture ofthe 

time dedicated to administration of the campaign as well as the compensation ofthe 

CFC dedicated staff. 

9 
Recommendation 5 

We recommend that the CFCO and LFCC require the PCFO to revise its current 

methodology for allocating CFC administrative expenses to match the requirements 

in 5 CFR 950.105 (3) (d) (7) and 5 CFR 950.106 (a), and ensure that this 

methodology is correctly implemented for the currently active and future campaigns. 

5. Duplicate Expense Charge 

The PCFO charged the 2008 campaign twice for $150 in award certificates. 

5 CFR 950.106 (a) states, "The PCFO shall recover from the gross receipts ofthe 

campaign its expenses, approved by the LFCC, reflecting the actual costs of 

administering the local campaign." Furthermore, 5 CFR 950.104 (b) (17) states that it 

is the LFCC's responsibility for "Authorizing to the PCFO reimbursement of only 

those campaign expenses that are legitimate CFC costs and are adequately 

documented." This provision is a control designed to help ensure that the PCFO 

reimburses itself for only appropriate and supportable expenses. 

We traced each expense from the 2008 Campaign Expense Schedule to supporting 

documentation to determine ifthe expenses agreed to the schedule and were 

justifiable. Our review ofthe invoices showed that a $150 expense for award 

certificates was entered twice in the CFC accounting records. When the PCFO 

purchased award certificates, it accidentally mistook the order receipt and the actual 

invoice as two separate expenses and entered them into the accounting system as two 

entries. The PCFO didn't realize that the two receipts were for the same order since 

the amounts were slightly different and there was a large time lag from making the 

purchase and entering the expenses into the accounting system. 

As a result of entering a duplicate expense into the CFC's accounting records, an 

inappropriate amount of $150 was charged to the 2008 campaign. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The LFCC will have the opportunity to 

double check all expenses in future years and there will be an additional check and 

balance in place to assure a correct record of billing. The PCFO will also reimburse 

the CFC Campaign for $150 that was billed twice in 2008. 

In addition, the corrective action plan includes training for committee members to 

ensure that they understand and are reminded oftheir responsibilities listed in 5 CFR 

950.106 and 950.104. 

10 

Recommendation 6 

We recommend that the CFCO require the PCFO to reimburse the current campaign 

$150 as undesignated funds. 

Recommendation 7 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the LFCC reviews, approves, and 

documents its authorization ofthe PCFO's reimbursement for campaign expenses. 

6. 2006 Expense Chars:;ed to the 2008 Campaign 

The PCFO incorrectly charged the 2008 campaign for audit fees related to the 2006 

campaign. 

According to 5 CFR 950.106 (b) "The PCFO may only recover campaign expenses 

from receipts collected for that campaign year." Additionally, CFC Memorandum 

2008-09 clarifies regulation 5 CFR 950.106 (b) by explaining "the expenses incurred 

for the audit of a campaign must be paid from funds from the campaign being 

audited." 

Based on our review of 2008 campaign expenses, we determined that the PCFO 

incorrectly charged the 2008 campaign for expenses that should have been charged to 

the 2006 campaign. Specifically, we identified that the PCFO received an invoice in 

the amount of $1 ,200 from its Independent Public Accountant in August 2008 for an 

audit performed on the 2006 campaign. The PCFO paid this invoice using 2008 

campaign funds instead of accruing and withholding the estimated audit fee from the 

last distribution in the 2006 campaign Applying the 2006 audit fee to the 2008 

campaign is inappropriate because the PCFO should only incur expenses related to 

that year's campaign. 

As a result of charging prior year campaign expenses to the 2008 campaign, the net 

designations due to charities were adversely effected. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The PCFO and LFCC now understand 

that the CFC regulations require that the campaign expenses be reimbursed in the 

year the campaign closes. The LFCC Chair will ensure that the PCFO and LFCC 

committee work together to create a plan to assign campaign expenses to the proper 

campaign year. 

Recommendation 8 

We recommend that the CFCO and LFCC work with the PCFO to put procedures in 

place to ensure that it properly matches expenses with the related campaign year. 

11 
Recommendation 9 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the PCFO correctly implements these new 

procedures for the currently active campaigns and provides guidance to the PCFO in 

regards to audit fees received related to closed campaigns. 

C. CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 

1. Notification of Designated and Un designated Amounts 

The PCFO did not notify agencies and federations of the 2008 CFC amounts due to 

them by the date set in OPM's 2008/2009 Calendar ofEvents. 

5 CFR 950.901 (i) (1) requires that the PCFO notify federations, national and 

international organizations, and local organizations of the amounts (if any) designated 

to them and their members and of the undesignated amounts due them no later than a 

date set by OPM. According to the CFC Calendar of Events, the deadline for the 

PCFOs to notify 2008 CFC participating charities and federations was March 16, 

2009. 

We reviewed the notifications sent by the PCFO to determine if the PCFO notified 

federations and organizations of the amounts designated to them and their members 

and of the undesignated amounts due to them by no later than the March 16th 

deadline. Per the PCFO, its notifications of designated and undesignated amounts 

were sent on April 23, 2009, along with the initial disbursement checks in order to 

save postage. 

As a result of not sending designated and undesignated funds notification letters to all 

agencies and federations ofthe 2008 campaign and not reporting all funds pledged to 

them, the agencies and federations could not have known the monies due to them for 

that campaign. Not knowing the amount ofthese funds could severely restrict the 

planning and budgeting abilities ofthe CFC agencies and federations depending upon 

the monies donated by Federal employees. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. Each January, the LFCC will be 

apprised of the OPM Calendar ofEvents and review that calendar at the scheduled 

January board meeting. In the board meetings that follow that year, the PCFO will 

provide an update of disbursements and receipts to the LFCC for review so that the 

LFCC can ensure that the PCFO follows all calendar deadlines, including notification 

of the CFC's participating charities and federations of their designations. As a show 

12 

of good faith, the PCFO/LFCC supplemented its response to the draft report with 

upcoming meeting agendas that outline the activities for the meetings, such as a 

review of campaign time-frames. 

Recommendation 10 

We recommend that the LFCC ensure that the PCFO notifies CFC participating 

charities and federations ofthe amounts due to them by the deadline listed in the CFC 

Calendar ofEvents for each year. 

2. Deadline for Campaign Disbursements 

The PCFO did not begin disbursement of 2008 campaign funds by the April 1, 2009 

deadline, as specified in the Federal regulations. 

According to 5 CFR 950.901 (i) (2), "The PCFO will distribute all CFC receipts 

beginning April 1, and quarterly thereafter." 

We reviewed the PCFO's April 2009 disbursement checks to determine if initial 

disbursements were made by the April 1 st deadline. We found that the initial 

disbursement was not made until April 23, 2009,22 calendar days (16 business days) 

past the April 1, 2009 deadline. 

By not adhering to the Federal regulations, the PCFO runs the risk of delaying the 

recipients' use of entitled funds. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. As part of their corrective action plan, 

the LFCC will review OPM's Calendar ofEvents at each board meeting and ensure 

that the PCFO sends all reports and payments by the imposed deadlines. 

Recommendation 11 

We recommend that the LFCC ensure that the PCFO disburses campaign funds by the 

deadlines listed in Federal regulations. 

3. Maintaining Interest-Bearing Bank Accounts 

The PCFO did not obtain approval from the CFCO to maintain CFC funds in a noninterest-bearing bank account for the 2008 campaign. 

5 CFR 950.105 (d) (8) requires the PCFO to keep and maintain CFC financial records 

and interest-bearing bank accounts separate from the PCFO's internal organizational 

financial records and bank accounts. 

13 

Based on our review ofthe bank statements and discussions with the PCFO, the 

established M&T Bank checking account, into which the 2008 campaign receipts are 

deposited, is not interest-bearing. The PCFO reasoned that an interest-bearing bank 

account will cost more in fees than the amount of interest that can be earned on the 

money deposited. Although the PCFO reasonably saw no benefit in opening an 

interest-bearing bank account, the PCFO did not seek approval from the CFCO in 

forgoing the Federal regulations. The PCFO has begun to research new banking 

services that provide interest-bearing bank accounts. 

As a result of not adhering to the Federal regulations, potential interest earned from 

idle campaign funds was lost. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The PCFO requested permission from 

the LFCC to move campaign funds into a savings account that will bear interest for 

all future campaigns. The LFCC Committee approved this course of action at the 

September 28,2010 meeting, as recorded in the minutes. 

Recommendation 12 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the PCFO is maintaining CFC funds in an 

interest-bearing bank account that is cost effective to the campaign. 

4. Policies and Procedures for Uncashed Checks 

The PCFO did not have written policies and procedures for uncashed checks. 

Consequently, the PCFO did not document its follow-up attempts to reach payees for 

uncashed checks that are over six months old. 

Section C ofCFC Memorandum 2006-5 states, "PCFOs must develop and follow 

policies and procedures regarding uncashed checks. We recommend that this policy 

be documented and implemented after a check has gone uncashed for six months. 

We recommend the procedures include at least three documented follow-up attempts 

to reach the payee by phone and email. Ifit is determined that the payee is no longer 

active, the funds must be distributed among the remaining organizations for that 

campaign as undesignated funds." 

We requested from the PCFO its policies and procedures related to uncashed checks. 

The PCFO responded that there were no written policies and procedures for uncashed 

checks and were unaware ofthe memorandum's guidance in establishing uncashed 

checks policies and procedures. 

Since policies and procedures are not in place for uncashed checks, and follow-up 

attempts to the payees were not documented, we can not confirm the PCFO's attempts 

to honor pledge dollars donated to charities by Federal employees. Because the 

14 

checks remain in an uncashed status, the pledged amounts from these checks were not 

properly distributed. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The PCFO has drafted a new policy 

that documents its practices for handling uncashed checks. All PCFO staff have been 

instructed to follow the policy and to document all attempts to follow-up. The PCFO 

provided us with a copy of its new policy for handling uncashed checks, which was 

approved by the LFCC on September 28,2010. 

Recommendation 13 

We recommend that the LFCC ensures that the PCFO has implemented its policies 

and procedures for uncashed checks so that it fully encompasses the 

recommendations of CFC Memorandum 2006-5. 

5. Cut-Off Procedures for CFC Receipts 

The PCFO did not maintain proper cut-off procedures when recording CFC receipts 

between campaign years. As a result, the PCFO disbursed $302 to the member 

agencies ofthe 2008 campaign in excess of the monies received. 

According to 5 CFR 950.901 (i) (2), the PCFO is responsible for the accuracy ofthe 

disbursements it transmits to recipients. CFC Memorandum 2003-4 provides 

guidance for the PCFO to correctly track and record CFC receipts in order to ensure 

an accurate cut-off oftransmitted CFC receipts between campaigns. Specifically, the 

Memorandum directs the PCFO to ensure that checks and EFTs from payroll offices 

are accompanied by a statement identifying the agency, the dates ofthe pay period, 

and the total number of employee deductions. If this information is not included with 

the checks and EFTs, then the PCFO should contact the payroll offices to request that 

it be provided. Furthermore, the Memorandum provides additional guidance to assist 

in the tracking and analysis of CFC receipts prior to the first payroll deductions 

received to ensure an accurate collection ofCFC receipts. Collections in excess of 

the amounts pledged should be reported to the payroll office and/or LFCC and CFCO 

for resolution. 

We reviewed the PCFO's 2008 Campaign Receipts and Disbursements Schedule to 

determine if all receipts were allocated to the correct campaign year and properly 

disbursed, less administrative expenses, by the end ofthe campaign. The total 

variance between bank deposits and the PCFO's reported campaign receipts and 

disbursements was $302. The variance shows that more funds were disbursed for the 

2008 campaign than what was received in the form ofEFTs and checks. The 

difference is due to improper cut-off procedures between campaign years. 

15 

Because the PCFO did not follow proper cut-off procedures to identify campaign 

receipts, recipients from other campaign years did not receive $302 in charitable 

contributions. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. To address the problem, the LFCC will 

review all payments, receipts, and disbursements of the Chambersburg CFC during 

regular meetings with the PCFO. The PCFO and LFCC provided us with the most 

recent meeting minutes and agendas for future meetings all showing that time will be 

spent reviewing campaign payments, receipts, and disbursements. 

Recommendation 14 

We recommend that the CFCO and LFCC ensure that the PCFO's cut-off procedures 

are in accordance with the guidance outlined in CFC Memorandum 2003-4 and the 

applicable Federal regulations so that campaign receipts are properly tracked, 

recorded, and disbursed within the appropriate campaign year. 

D. ELIGIBILITY 

1. Eligibility Review oCLocal Organizations 

The LFCC did not provide documentation to support that it reviewed all of the 

eligibility requirements, as specified by the Federal regulations, for organizations that 

applied to participate in the local campaign. 

5 CFR 950.104 (b) (3) states that determining the eligibility oflocal organizations 

that apply to participate in the local campaign is an exclusive responsibility of the 

LFCC and may not be delegated to the PCFO. 

We evaluated the criteria used by the LFCC to determine the eligibility of local 

organizations applying to participate in the 2008 campaign. As part of our audit, we 

had to determine ifthe criteria included the required regulations prescribed in 5 CFR 

950 and if the LFCC made the final eligibility determination. During our review, we 

identified three organizations that were missing evidence of an eligibility 

determination by the LFCC. 

Without proper review by the LFCC, the CFC could include organizations that do not 

meet the requirements of Federal regulations. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The LFCC Chair ensures that all future 

applications for the Chambersburg CFC Campaign will be reviewed for regulation 

compliance after the LFCC Committee performs an initial review of the applications. 

16 

Recommendation 15 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the LFCC complies with 5 CFR 950.104 

(b) (3) and properly documents its review of organization applications. 

2. Deadline to Issue Notice of Eligibility Decisions 

The LFCC did not issue notice of its eligibility decisions within 15 business days of 

the closing date for receipt of applications. The closing date for the 2008 campaign 

was March 3, 2008. 

5 CFR 950.801 (a) (5) states that the LFCC "must issue notice of its eligibility 

decisions within 15 business days of the closing date for receipt of applications." The 

closing date for the 2008 campaign was March 3,2008. 

We reviewed a sample of eligibility letters that were sent by the LFCC to determine if 

the LFCC's eligibility decisions were issued within 15 business days ofthe closing 

date ofthe applications. From our review, we determined that the eligibility 

notification letters were dated and sent June 17,2008, instead of the March 24,2008 

deadline (15 business days after March yd). 

As a result of issuing late notifications, agencies and federations were not notified of 

the CFC's eligibility decisions in a timely manner. 

PCFO and LFCC's Comments: 

The PCFO and LFCC agree with this finding. The LFCC Chair and the LFCC 

committee have worked together to create a plan for ensuring that notices of 

eligibility are issued in accordance with the Federal regulations. The LFCC expanded 

the review committee to provide a one-day review of applications and immediate 

turnaround for communication to applicants by the required deadlines. 

Recommendation 16 

We recommend that the CFCO ensure that the LFCC issues notice of eligibility 

decisions within 15 days of the closing date for receipt of applications in compliance 

with 5 CFR 950.801 (a) (5). 

E. PCFO AS A FEDERATION 

Our review of the PCFO's activities as a federation showed that it complied with the 

applicable provisions in 5 CFR 950. 

17 

IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

Spcdal Audits Group 

Auditor-in-Charge 

Auditor 

Senior T earn Leader 

Group \.- 01,,,, 

18 

APPENDIX 

10lG veT - fl All 7' 2C 

Chambersburg CFC Campaign #0740 

United Way Franklin County, PCFO 

182 S. Second Street 

Chambersburg PA 17201 

Phone 71 7-262-001 5 

Fax· 71 7' 262-0018 

Oc toher 5, 2010 

O!lit:'-, Ill" Pe rsonnel Mnllagl:tncnt 


O !lie..: o f Ihe (Je neral 


C\,;: f-(c ilh Willingham 


i)in:dor, Combined Feele ral Camp;ligll Operatio ns 


Ikar _ , 

I !nilcJ \Vay of Fnlll!.d in County as I)CFO o r the Chambers burg ere Campaign #0740. 

a lld I ,eUc rkellllY Army O t:POI, as LFCC or the cOoIlllpaig n, have rcad a nd arc laking the 

IinJings PI" the o rrico.! o f Ihe Inspector Geneml vc ry seriously. This audit was trul y an 

cdu caliuH;ll ex lll c for everyone involved with Ollr campai gn. and we ;He using ,hi 

as an OpP0l1 lllli ly to improve campaign stru cture, record keeping and adillinistrali vt: 

prnccd un:s to meet or ex\,;cet..! your rcquircmcnt5 Ii:Jr the futurc. 

Our t.:orrccti vc pl an lor each H:t.:ll lllmendation from yo ur report will b..: addrcsscd in orde r 

as rclc rcnccd from your orig inal dran report. Our LFCC Committee and PCFO Still have 

alread y begufl work toward correcting lIlost o f the findings, and plans art: ill place to 

addn.:ss alilindings by comple tion of the 20 11 Campaign, whi ch we will hegin the 

appiit.:Jlion cyck of in 1\\It' months. Any additiomll work to improw campaign, not 

..h:tailed within your audit . will bc uddrcsscd at the end or our reported res ponse. 

I. 	 'Ihl: Chambersburg I.rcc has not maintained minutes or meetings and 

di::.cussions in past years, howe ver, sillce February 2010, when the LFCC became 

:!W:H e that meeting minutes we re required and wo uld need to be maintained, the 

I ,io'CC has bee n taking minutes ofeach committee mceting and the a t1 endancc, 

actio ns ilnd decisiollS o flhosc meetings. (2010 meeting minutes attached) 

... .. 1. Al lillee tings a re now held a t the otTi cc of the PCFO.lJllited Way o f 

Franklin Count y. with the exce ption of campaign kit.: koff eve nts, which 

are lJeld in the federal workplace. UniLed Way Franklin County o!1ke was 

selec ted as th e best sitc for meetings to ensure that federal c llIploycl..:s that 
are located in different areas of community will leel that the location SIl\ 

is a neutral travel point for all federal agencies. 

b. 	 A new Campaign Chair has been appointed to the committee, Lt. Jamie 

Brackett, and has agreed to work with the campaign lor 20 I 0 and through 

20 II, to help build a plan tor assuring commitment of committee 

members, as well as to create a succession plan t()r campaign leadership so 

that future campaign chairs will be brought into campaign prior to 

application season and carry through the commitment until campaign is 

closed. Three new committee members have already been recruited in the 

20 I 0 campaign season to bring new energy and a higher level of 

commitment to the all volunteer LFCe. 

c. 	 A meeting schedule bas been circulated, directing that meetings will be 

held the 4th Tuesday of all odd months, to ensure that the committee 

follows a plan to keep campaign activities on track. 

2. 	 The next application period for PCFO of the Chambersburg CFC Campaign is for 

January 2011. This application and all future applications will contain correct 

language, as directed by OPM regulation. As an eHort of good faith, the PCFO is 

resubmitting their request for the 20 I 0 campaign with the corrected language, and 

will submit a sample copy of the 20 II request letter and budget to demonstrate 

that corrections are already in place to move forward, once next year's peFO 

Application is requested. (Corrected 2010 PCFO Application Attached) 

3. 	 The peFO did not formally ask for approval of campaign expenses in 2008. The 

eFCO has met with the peFO and together, they have developed plans for the 

LFCC to meet prior to reimbursement of expenses lor the campaign and formally 

review all expenses at the January board meeting to ensure that the expenses are 

approved before reimbursement. (An agenda for the 2011 January meeting is 

attached to demonstrate that campaign practices are being adapted to mt:et 

requirements of OPM.) 

4. 	 The CFCO ensures that minutes will reflect the review and approval of 

campaign expenses from the just completed campaign in January 2011 and 

all subsequent campaigns. 

5. 	 The PCFO and CFCO reviewed the regulations of OPM together to ensure 

that both parties understand the responsibilities that relate to campaign 

expenses and reimbursement of those expenses. The LFCC will receive a 

training, related to all LFCC responsibilities, prior to review of PCFO 

expenses at the January LFCC meeting (meeting agenda for January 

attached) 

6. 	 The peFO has requested the same administrative fee tor administration of 

campaign for at least the past 5 years, with no increase for changes and increases 

in staffing. This was done in an effort to keep campaign expenses as low as 

possible. Tn 2010, records of administrative time spent toward the eFe campaign 

were kept and for 2011 's proposal, the administrative costs will be directly 

reflective of amount of time dedicated to administration of campaign and the 

compensation of statT members who do the work of administering campaign. 

(Billed time record for 2009 and payrates for PCFO staff are attached to 
demonstrate that campaign was billed for agreed upon administrative fec, 

although hours in 2009 exceeded budget.) 

7. 	 In 2008 there was an incident ofdouble billing for one invoice because an invoice 

appeared twice in the PCFO files for accounts payable. Because the LFCC will 

have the opportunity to double check all expenses (see item 3) in future years, 

there will be an additional check and balance in place to assure that items aren't 

accidently billed twice.(PCFO will also reimburse the CFC Campaign for 

$150 that was billed twice in 2008-action to be reviewed in minutes from the 

September 2010 meeting-attached) 

8. 	 Documentation from Recommendations 3,4,5 and 6 demonstrate changes in the 

process for authorization of campaign expense reimbursement. The CFCO of the 

Chambersburg CFC Campaign ensures that the LFCC will follow through on 

proper documentation, review and approval of future expenses tor CFC 

Campaigns. 

9. 	 At the January meeting of the LFCC, all volunteer committee members will 

receive a training to ensure that they understand and are reminded of their 

responsibilities as related to 5 CFR 950.106 and 950.l 04. (See January meeting 

agenda) 

10. Audit fees have historically been charged lor the campaign that has been closed to 

the campaign that is beginning when expenses are reimbursed. This has been the 

practice of this campaign since it's beginning because the expense does not occur 

to the campaign until 2 years after the campaign is run. We now understand that 

OPM regulations require that the campaign expense be reimbursed in the year the 

campaign closes. (In February 2009, we should have been reimbursed for 2007 

campaign audit, which would not occur and be billed until August 2009). This 

creates an unusual challenge for our campaign, as we must bill for the estimated 

cost of the campaign before the cost occurs, and also created a situation where 

normally the PCFO would have to absorb the cost of the audit for one year to 

correct the situation. We have a unique opportunity to correct this because OPM 

performed the 2008 Audit. For 2010 campaign, the PCFO will continue to be 

reimbursed on schedule so that payment of the 2007 audit will occur in 20 10. In 

2011, the pcro will bill tor the 2009 audit instead of the 2008, because the 2008 

will have been completed at no cost to the campaign. This will correct our audit 

reimbursement schedule tor all future years of campaign. Audits will have to be 

reimbursed based on an estimate ofthe cost of services, and if necessary, a 

correction will be made later in campaign schedule to be sure that the actual cost 

of audit is reflected. The CFCO ensures that the PCFO and LrCC have been 

working together to create a plan lor the campaign expenses related to audits be 

moved into the proper campaign year. 

1L The LrCC will be apprised of the OPM Calendar of Events each January and 

re~iew that calendar at the January board meeting. At all other board meetings, an 

update of disbursements and receipts will be provided by the PCFO to the LFCC 

lor review so that the LFCC can ensure that the PCFO follows all deadlines of the 

calendar, including notification ofCFC participating charities and federations of 

their designations. (See January agenda and other agendas) 
12, 	The I,FCC will re\le\\ t1k: (>PM Calendar or events at each b{)urd meeting ,,~ 

ensurc Ihat lhc peH) has provided all reports and pa~ ments 10 mcd all imposeJ 

deadlincs. 

11, The pcro has maintaincd Ihl,.~ same accoullt f<)r the Chambersburg Combined 

Federal Campaign slllce the campaign was estahlishcd. That account ...vas 

established to ;l\oid ICcs associalcd \\ ilh typical checking accounts, hO\lieVer that 

account was not wlerest haring. As correct;\'e action, the pcro requested 

permission fj'om the CFCO in spring or 20 I 0, immcdiately alkr the audit was 

conducleu, to make a changc to thc account and move fUllds into () savings 

account, allachcd to the dll~ck\llg account thai originally held the funds, so that 

campaign funding hears interest Il.)r all future camp:lIgns. The LFCC Committee 

approved tillS course of action at their Septemher 28, 20 I 0 Committee Meeting, as 

rcllcclcd ill Ihe" minutes. (Septemher' Committce l\{ccting Minutes Attached) 

14. A 	policy has been urarted alld is included that doclIlllents the practices and policy 

or Chambersburg. All stall of the PCFO ha\c been instructed 10 \()llo..\' Ihe policy 

and to document all allcmpts al Il,llo\.\-up.(I*olicy [01' handling un-cashed 

checks :1ttached-apprmcd hy LFC(, 011 Sept 28, 1U 10) 

15. As part or each regular Illeeting agcllda, the LFCC \\ill re\ie\\ all paymenls, 

receipts and disbursemcnts of th\.: Chambersburg ere Campaign, (sec attached 

meeting minutes from Scptelllb('I' 20 I n, .lnd ..geudas f(H- Jan. 20 II, Mar. 

20 II as (·xamples) 

16, The CFCO ensures thai all flllUl\.' applications offlle Chambersburg eFe 

Campaigll will be 1\~VI\.~\\ed anC! the r,1-'('(' ( 'ollllllillee \.~(llllpktcs ils re\'icw or 

applicants 10 ensure thal all documclltatioll of rc\ie\\ IS cOlllpkted. 

17. The CFCO alld Campaign ('hair (lrlhc Ch~ullhershurg eFe Campaign, have 

worked logcthcr to create a plan for cnsuring tat lIotices or d igibi I it yare issued 

within 15 days o/" closing dale tor rcccipt of applicallts or future campaigns, For 

the 2011 campaign, the LFCC IS already planning ttlllled 011 1\-larch 29, 20l L 

Applications Ic)! Ihe call1paign \\ill be due 011 f\1arch 201h, ,\hiell will allow 8 days 

of preparation bcll.)lc the COIllIIIIUCC meets 10 rcyic\\ ap(lli\~alions, The review 

cOlllmiUce is being expanded to 20 members so that adequate l ,FCC mcmhcrship 

is cnsured In pr(l\lde a lllle-day re\lC\\ Ill' applications h\· c()lIIl11ittet:, alld 

immedIate turnaroulld Ii 1I COlllllllllllcatioll or appl icalllS In ,\pnl 5, 201 I. 

DELETED BY OPM OIG 

NOT RELEVANT TO THE REPORT "'", 
DELETE!} BY OPM OIG 


NOT RELEVANT TO THE REPORT 


Til l..: Chamhe rsburg Combined .! L' ~1 1 Campai gn has run a low cosl, effective campai gn 

to emplo y!.!",s in our rcg ioll for llIallY years. Both the tFee and th e pcro thai have 

hi::>to ricall y 1ll'-ltlUgCJ this c alilpai gn take the campaign seriously and cafe deeply lor this 

conUlHlIlity. .'\ number or the findings reported during the 2008 were based in 

rcquin:rlh': I1 LS that bUill the Lr ee alld Ihe r CFO d id not understand prio r to Ill!: autliL 

The C h<1llloo.:rshurg Campai gn hus dcrnomarated gro\\1h in recent years of our c ampaign, 

and we helie"c thai the required changes C::l n be made in order to meet or exceed (he 

rCljUin:lllcnL<; or OI'M, as well as to grow the campaign ror future years. Wc're l:xc itcd 

,rhoul the opport unities prcscnkd 10 improve our campa ign and arc looking torward to 

incr..:ased ,;OIlUllun ic:.lli lHI Hld tealllwor k tll al our recently initi<llcd plans creale. 

PI..:ast.: dOli " h..::-; ilal e to contac t eitht.:r A ngie Coons, as CFCO o f the Campaign, or Amy 

"Iicks, as PCFC) I )jn:l;(or if) ou ban: ill I)' questions or concerns regardin g our plans for 

thc UPClllllilig call1 p:lign i.wd ruturc c:Hllpaigns. 

C1",'"be " ,I"" g. C I-C em n pa ign 

E xec uti n: l)irc..:\oL United Way Frankl in County 

(Teo. <. 'hatllhLTshurg Comhincd Federal O unpai gn 

(TC l'I"O!!!" :ull Malla ~~ cr . l.ell c1" [.... c llIl\ Army n epol 

, .