Introduction: Materiality by Compliance Requirement Matrix Planning Federal Materiality by Compliance Requirement See Footnotes 1-6 the matrix table for further explanation, in particular, review note 6 which discusses tailoring the matrix assessments (1) (2) (6) (6) (3) (4) (5) (5) (6) Compliance Requirement Applicable per Suppl. Direct & material to program / entity Monetary or nonmonetary If monetary, population subject to require. Inherent risk (IR) assess. Final control risk (CR) assess. Detection risk of noncompl. Overall audit risk of noncompl. Federal materiality by compl. requirement (Yes or No) (Yes or No) (M/N) (Dollars) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) (High/Low) typically 5% of population subject to requirement A Activities Allowed or Unallowed Yes M 5% B Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Yes M 5% C Cash Management Yes N 5% D RESERVED E Eligibility No F Equipment & Real Property Mgmt Yes M 5% G Matching, Level of Effort, Earmark Yes M 5% H Period of Availability (Performance) Yes M 5% I Procurement & Sus. & Debarment Yes N 5% J Program Income No K RESERVED L Reporting Yes N 5% M Subrecipient Monitoring Yes N 5% N Special Tests & Provisions (Schoolwide Programs) Yes N 5%
Auditors must be alert to improper payments, particularly when testing the following parts of section III. - A, “Activities Allowed or Unallowed;” B, “Allowable Costs/Cost Principles;” E, “Eligibility;” and, in some cases, N, “Special Tests and Provisions.”
Brookville Local – Montgomery Co. Canton City - Stark Co. Cincinnati City - Hamilton Co. Dublin City – Franklin Co.East Cleveland City – Cuyahoga Co. Geauga County ESC – Geauga Co. Hudson City – Summit Co. Kent City SD – Portage Co. ESC of Lake Erie West (formerly as Lucas County ESC) – Lucas Co. ESC of Cuyahoga County – Cuyahoga Co. ESC of Ashtabula County – Ashtabula Co. Madison-Champaign ESC – Champaign Co. Muskingum Valley ESC – Muskingum Co. Northwest Local SD – Hamilton Co. Piqua City Schools – Miami Co. Ross Local SD – Butler Co. Southern Ohio ESC – Clinton Co. Tri-County ESC – Wayne Co. Wellston City – Jackson Co. Western Buckeye ESC – Paulding Co. Wood County ESC – Wood Co. Worthington City SD – Franklin Co. (Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Federal and State Grants Management / e-mail from JoHannah Ward, ODE / ) Testing Considerations Consolidation of Administrative Funds and Coordination Services Projects The Ohio Department of Education has not implemented consolidation of administrative funds or the coordination services projects for its ESEA programs. Consolidation is not prohibited by ODE however; the CCIP is not setup for the consolidation of administrative funds and services. (Source: Ohio Department of Education Division of Federal Programs) Transferability Expenditures of transferred from one program to another (as described in III.A.3, “Activities Allowed or Unallowed – Transferability (SEAs and LEAs)”) should be included in the audit universe and total expenditures of the receiving program for purposes of (1) determining Type A programs, and (2) completing the SEFA. A footnote showing amounts transferred between programs is encouraged by OMB and has been requested by ODE. Auditors should ascertain from the audited SEAs and LEAs whether the SEA or the LEA or its schools are operating ESEA flexibility or any other approved waivers. Transfers between federal program that are covered by ESEA flexibility for federal purposes are allowable. Federal law takes precedence over State Laws and no Ohio Revised Code citations should be issued. (Source: CFAE ) ESEA Flexibility Waivers Any requested waivers be reviewed/approved by the ODE waiver committee.
(4) Procedures – No Negotiated ICRA (a) If an indirect cost rate has not been negotiated by a cognizant agency for indirect costs, the auditor should determine whether documentation exists to support the costs. Where the auditee has documentation, the suggested general audit procedures under paragraph 3.b above should be performed to determine the appropriateness of the indirect cost charges to awards. (b) If an indirect cost rate has not been negotiated by a cognizant agency for indirect costs, and documentation to support the indirect costs does not exist, the auditor should question the costs based on a lack of supporting documentation.
Services; National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities; Office of National Drug Control Policy; and Social Security Administration. The complete list of exceptions is available at . to internal control matters (significant deficiencies or material weaknesses), if any, documented in the FACCR: to questioned costs and matter of noncompliance, if any, documented in this FACCR: Per paragraph 13.47 of the 2016 AICPA Audit Guide, Government Auditing Standards and Single Audits, the schedule of findings and questioned costs should include all audit findings required to be reported under the Uniform Guidance. A separate written communication (such as a communication sometimes referred to as a management letter) may not be used to communicate such matters to the auditee in lieu of reporting them as audit findings in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. See the discussion beginning at paragraph 13.33 for information on Uniform Guidance requirements for the schedule of findings and questioned costs. If there are other matters that do not meet the Uniform Guidance requirements for reporting but, in the auditor's judgment, warrant the attention those charged with governance, they should be communicated in writing or orally. If such a communication is provided in writing to the auditee, there is no requirement for that communication to be referenced in the Uniform Guidance compliance report. Per table 13-2 a matter must meet the following in order to be communicated in the management letter: Other deficiencies in internal control over compliance that are not significant deficiencies or material weaknesses required to be reported but, in the auditor's judgment, are of sufficient importance to be communicated to management. Noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations or terms and conditions of federal awards related to a major program that does not meet the criteria for reporting under the Uniform Guidance but, in the auditor's judgment, is of sufficient importance to communicate to management or those charged with governance. Abuse that is less than material to a major program and not otherwise required to be reported but that, in the auditor's judgment, is of sufficient importance to communicate to the auditee. Other findings or issues arising from the compliance audit that are not otherwise required to be reported but are, in the auditor's professional judgment, significant and relevant to those charged with governance. Cross-reference to any Management Letter items and explain why not included in the Single Audit Compliance Report: