Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Arpa Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit of ARPA workforce development grants finds gaps in policies, contracts and controls; management agrees to reforms
Summary
A Washington County audit of ARPA-funded workforce development programs found missing grant policies, weak contract language, limited monitoring and insufficient financial controls; county management agreed to most recommendations and set timelines for policy updates and a risk-assessment tool.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, Ore. — County auditors told the Board of Commissioners on Dec. 17 that an audit of the county’s American Rescue Plan Act workforce development grants exposed significant weaknesses in oversight and documentation and recommended 10 corrective actions.
County Auditor Christine Adams Swanberg opened the presentation, saying the "lessons learned show that the county needs to improve accountability of the results and spending." Senior management auditor Sherry Kirk described four central findings: the county lacked grant-administration policies and procedures; contracts were insufficiently developed and delayed (creating legal and financial risk); partner monitoring relied on unvalidated, aggregated reporting; and internal financial controls were too limited to assure allowable costs.
Kirk told commissioners the audit found eight of nine community partners had begun program work before contracts were complete and that contract reporting requirements were limited to a general ledger template rather than source documentation such as payroll detail, time sheets or invoices. She said some partner data included duplicate beneficiaries and participants who appeared ineligible under the county’s ARPA framework.
The audit package recommended 10 steps, including developing countywide grant procedures, updating Policy 403 and contract-administration training, creating a grant risk-assessment tool, requiring beneficiary-eligibility documentation in contracts, implementing a grant monitoring plan, and strengthening financial controls and indirect-cost review.
County management read a written response during the meeting and signaled agreement with most recommendations. Management said it would update contract-administration Policy 403, develop countywide grant procedures and implement a grant risk-assessment tool with a target completion window of 18–24 months. Management also committed to better documentation and monitoring work through the county’s economic development program.
On one point management disagreed: county representatives stated they had relied on federally negotiated indirect-cost rate letters from subrecipients and followed 2 C.F.R. Part 200 guidance, and therefore did not concur with the audit’s recommendation about indirect-cost treatment.
Commissioners asked for follow-up steps. Commissioner Rogers and others raised questions about coordination with the county’s financial auditors and requested clearer public access to the full audit document. Auditor Swanberg said she had shared the audit with the financial auditor and invited further discussion.
Next steps recorded by management included policy updates led by finance, creation of monitoring procedures through the economic development program, and training requirements for contract administrators. The auditors noted the audit covered only the workforce-development portion of the county’s ARPA program, not all ARPA-funded work.
The board did not take immediate formal action other than discussion and direction to follow up on management’s commitments. The county’s written audit and management-response excerpts are part of the permanent record.
