Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuous Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OAG continuous monitoring finds frequent school finance exceptions; quarter-two work covered 60 sites
Summary
OAG reported Q1 and Q2 continuous monitoring results showing common exceptions across bank reconciliations, P-card approvals, gate receipts and documentation; 36 of 78 sampled sites had no exceptions while others showed recurring control weaknesses tied to staff turnover.
Fairfax County School Board Audit Committee members were briefed April 28 on FY25 continuous monitoring for quarters one and two, which analyzed electronic transaction patterns and supported selection of sites for follow-up reviews.
Ms. Moore, an auditor with the Office of the Auditor General, explained the program: “these are more technology based audits ... [that] analyze patterns and trends and select transactions and test transactions.” For Q1 the OAG performed an analysis and visited 18 schools; for Q2 the office selected 158 transactions covering 60 of 78 sampled sites. The OAG reported that 36 of the 78 sites had no exceptions noted, 28 sites had exceptions in three or fewer areas, and 14 sites had no transactions in the sample.
Exceptions and counts cited by OAG included: 10 sites with non‑bank reconciliation exceptions (for example, unsigned or untimely P‑card statements); six bank reconciliation exceptions (unsigned or untimely reconciliations or adjusted book balances not matching summary trial-balance cash); four purchasing-process exceptions (missing preapproval or purchases exceeding PO amounts by more than the regulation’s 4% threshold, plus at least one purchase of computer monitors from a vendor outside approved channels); four untimely deposit exceptions; three incorrect account‑coding exceptions; three safeguarding‑assets exceptions (for example, unsecured check stock or missing P‑cards on hand); two competitive‑bidding exceptions (purchases over $10,000 without competition); two insufficient‑documentation exceptions; and one timely‑payment exception (an invoice not paid on schedule without a late fee).
Committee members pressed OAG on sampling and follow-up. A committee member asked how sites are selected; Ms. Moore described a mix of timing since the last visit, prior audit findings, transaction risk characteristics (vendor type, dollar amount) and a requirement to exercise coverage across all sites over the four quarters. A school-finance staff member explained that the OAG looks at the entire transaction universe, then buckets transactions (cash receipts, cash disbursements, P‑card) and applies scripts or filters (for example, transactions over $10,000) to focus reviews.
Staffing and training context: School finance staff reported a high share of new or vacant school finance positions. One staff presenter said there are 28 “new and vacant” positions systemwide and 56 in the deeper dataset; of the new positions, 37 are at elementary level, five at middle schools and eight at high schools. The office described training and mitigation steps: mandatory two‑year training for administrative assistants, scenario‑based video resources, automation efforts to require online uploads of key reconciliations (FMR, P‑card) and an updated, living school finance handbook.
Decision/direction: The continuous monitoring results will feed the FY25 local school activities funds audit (scheduled for an October 2025 report) and inform business process audits where deeper dives are warranted. No formal committee vote was taken on the monitoring results; OAG will continue the monitoring program and pursue site visits where exceptions indicate risk.
Ending: OAG said it has begun third‑quarter review work and is processing roughly 50 schools for that quarter; it will present the local school activities funds audit later in the year.
