<strong>Federal</strong> <strong>Award</strong> <strong>Findings</strong>, <strong>Questioned</strong> <strong>Costs</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Corrective</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>(Reformatted from FY 2009 Single Audit Report)<strong>and</strong> therefore, allocated the wrong award amounts to LEAs for fiscal year 2009. Furthermore, there was noevidence that an independent review of the eligibility determinations <strong>and</strong> funding allocations had taken place. Inaddition, the Department could not locate the schedule prepared to calculate LEAs’ eligibility <strong>and</strong> fundingallocations to new or significantly exp<strong>and</strong>ed charter schools during fiscal year 2009 for the Title I, Part A Cluster<strong>and</strong> Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program.Effect: As a result of using the prior year’s award amount for allocating the Improving Teacher Quality StateGrants program monies, $215,493 was unallocated <strong>and</strong> not awarded to LEAs. In addition, there was nodocumentation supporting the amounts allocated to new or significantly exp<strong>and</strong>ed charter schools for the Title I,Part A Cluster <strong>and</strong> Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, auditors were unable to verify whetherLEAs were allocated the correct amounts of federal award monies. This finding is a significant deficiency ininternal control over compliance <strong>and</strong> noncompliance with the cluster’s <strong>and</strong> program’s eligibility requirements <strong>and</strong>special tests <strong>and</strong> provisions. This finding could also affect other federal programs, including ARRA programs, theDepartment administered.Cause: The Department assigned one employee to prepare the LEA eligibility determinations <strong>and</strong> fundingallocations <strong>and</strong> had no policies <strong>and</strong> procedures in place to require an independent employee to review the work.Recommendation: To help ensure that federal award monies are allocated to LEAs correctly <strong>and</strong> in accordancewith the Cluster’s <strong>and</strong> Program’s eligibility requirements <strong>and</strong> special tests <strong>and</strong> provisions, the Department shouldassign an independent employee to review the LEA eligibility determinations <strong>and</strong> funding allocations beforeawarding <strong>and</strong> disbursing program monies to LEAs. In addition, the Department should retain documentationsupporting eligibility determinations <strong>and</strong> funding allocations.This finding was similar to a prior-year finding.Agency Response: ConcurContact person: Gary Holl<strong>and</strong>, Audit Manager, (602) 364-3518Anticipated completion date: June 30, 2010Agency <strong>Corrective</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>: Arizona Department of Education has implemented procedures to ensure that thework of each employee, making allocation determinations, is reviewed by a program director responsible for theprogram. Additionally, all work files are kept in our archived folders for easy reference in the future.In each of the cases cited the errors either have been adjusted or will be adjusted in a subsequent allocationprocess.09-126Special Education Cluster (IDEA):CFDA No.: 84.027 Special Education—Grants to States, #s H027A060007, H027A070007, <strong>and</strong>H027A08000784.173 Special Education—Preschool Grants, #s H173A060003, H173A070003, <strong>and</strong>H173A080003U.S. Department of Education<strong>Award</strong> Period: July 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007July 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009Reporting<strong>Questioned</strong> Cost: Unknown34
<strong>Federal</strong> <strong>Award</strong> <strong>Findings</strong>, <strong>Questioned</strong> <strong>Costs</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Corrective</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>(Reformatted from FY 2009 Single Audit Report)FindingCriteria: According to 34 CFR §300.640, states must annually submit an unduplicated count of children withdisabilities receiving special education <strong>and</strong> related services. Additionally, 34 CFR §300.645(c) requires states toobtain certifications from each agency <strong>and</strong> institution that it performed an unduplicated <strong>and</strong> accurate count.Condition <strong>and</strong> context: The Department of Education prepared census reports of children with disabilities fromages 3 to 21 who received special education <strong>and</strong> related services within the State using data from its StudentAccountability Information System (SAIS). To validate the SAIS data’s accuracy, the Department required theLEAs to verify in letters to the Department by November 14, 2008, their unduplicated student counts as ofOctober 1, 2008. However, the Department did not reconcile the verification letters to the SAIS data to validatethe accuracy of the Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education, Part B, submitted onFebruary 1, 2009, until after June 30, 2009. Specifically, auditors noted that for 27 of 50 LEAs tested, the countsin the verification letters did not match the SAIS data.Effect: An incorrect count of children with disabilities could affect the funding the Department receives in futureyears. Auditors performed additional procedures <strong>and</strong> determined that the discrepancies between the SAIS data <strong>and</strong>the unduplicated student counts verified by LEAs would not result in material noncompliance with the Cluster’sreporting requirements. However, it was not practical to extend our auditing procedures sufficiently to determinequestioned costs, if any, that may have resulted from this finding. This finding is a significant deficiency ininternal control over compliance <strong>and</strong> noncompliance with the cluster’s reporting requirements.Cause: Inconsistencies between counts in the verification letters <strong>and</strong> SAIS data were caused by missing orincorrect data in SAIS due to LEAs’ not updating information when required or not submitting data corrections ina timely manner. The Department began contacting the LEAs in August 2009 to identify reasons for thedifferences.Recommendation: To help ensure that an accurate, unduplicated count of children with disabilities receivingspecial education <strong>and</strong> related services is reported, the Department should resolve differences between datarecorded on SAIS <strong>and</strong> data reported by LEAs in verification letters prior to reporting the data to the federalgrantor.This finding was similar to a prior-year finding.Agency Response: ConcurContact person: Gary Holl<strong>and</strong>, Audit Manager, (602) 364-3518Anticipated completion date: June 30, 2010Agency <strong>Corrective</strong> <strong>Action</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>: The Arizona Department of Education (ADE)-Exceptional Student Services(ESS) has revised its policies <strong>and</strong> procedures to address the federal child count verification process in thefollowing manner:ESS requires local education agencies (LEAs) to verify their federal child count on October 1, effective FY 2009.This was a change from the previous federal child count date of December 1. A memo regarding this change wassent to the Special Education Directors, via the list-serv, on June 9, 2008, <strong>and</strong> again on August 21, 2008. Bymoving the child count date earlier in the year, LEAs will have more time to submit <strong>and</strong> correct their child countdata in Student Accountability Information System (SAIS) well in advance of the federal child count due date,thus giving ADE-ESS accurate data to submit to Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).ADE has not yet initiated statutory changes to reduce the SAIS adjustment window. ESS will continue to pursuediscussions within ADE, relative to initiating <strong>and</strong> completing this statutory change. Currently, A.R.S. §15-91535
- Page 1 and 2: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 3 and 4: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 5 and 6: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 7 and 8: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 9 and 10: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 11 and 12: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 13 and 14: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 15 and 16: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 17 and 18: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 19 and 20: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 21 and 22: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 23 and 24: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 25 and 26: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 27 and 28: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 29 and 30: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 31 and 32: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 33: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 37 and 38: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 39 and 40: Federal Award Findings, Questioned
- Page 41: Federal Award Findings, Questioned