1. FFY2013 EAP Annual Training
Part 8: EAP/WAP Internal Controls Assessment; Local Plan; Grant Contract; FFY13 Approach 1

2. EAP/WAP Internal Controls (IC) Evaluation

3. EAP/WAP Internal Controls (IC) Evaluation
Context
In light of the FFY2012 OLA finding, EAP has come under scrutiny at various levels:
DOC Senior Management
The MN Office of the Legislative Auditor
The MN Legislative Audit Commission
EAP’s reputation and credibility are at risk

4. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Evaluation
DOC management proposed to evaluate EAP and WAP auditing and internal controls methodology for improvements
We have contracted with a consultant to conduct an independent process/program evaluation to provide external validation and provide recommendations for improvements
The evaluation will help us to identify potential improvements and address both external and internal concerns

5. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Consultant
We received 3 responses to our RFP
Baker Tilly Virchow Krause of Madison WI was selected by a DOC proposal evaluation panel

6. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Workplan Contract finalized July 16
EAP and WAP are collecting and submitting information regarding:
Program practices and procedures
Program accounting and financial reporting
Organizational structure
Service provider capacity and oversight
Internal reporting and auditing
Service Providers
Identify and provide a copy of the contract/agreement between the DOC and its EAP and WAP service providers that have provided services in the current biennium budget period.
Provide a summary of third party contracts, including authorized amounts and actual spend.
Provide any internal control documentation or risk assessments performed specific to the management of service providers.
Provide documentation of service provider oversight and cost management controls (e.g., invoice templates and reporting required, if applicable).
Provide documentation on EAP and WAP service providers procurement/bid processes (e.g., RFP, sole-sourcing, etc) and controls related to selecting contractors.
Describe any documented disputes between the DOC and the service providers.

7. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Workplan Field visit the week of August 20
DOC Management, EAP/WAP subject matter experts, and SP representatives will be interviewed
Evaluation will:
Document and assess EAP/WAP current internal controls methodology and processes
Review and assess state and national internal controls best practices

8. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Report
Baker Tilly will present its final report by October 15, including:
An analysis of the programs’ auditing and internal controls strengths and weaknesses
A review and comparison of similar programs at the state and national levels
Program-specific, detailed, and actionable recommendations to implement improvements and to ensure the programs’ effectiveness and efficiency
Baker Tilly will present their final report by October 15, including:
An analysis of the programs’ auditing and internal controls strengths and weaknesses;
A review and comparison of similar programs at the state and national levels to identify industry internal controls best practices and existing program models and to conduct a gap analysis;
Program-specific, detailed, and actionable recommendations to implement improvements and to ensure the programs’ effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, compliance with applicable laws and regulation, and oversight of energy vendors, weatherization contractors, and service providers.

9. EAP/WAP IC Evaluation The Results
Implementing the evaluation’s recommendations may result in program changes after October 1
While this evaluation is a state initiative, push for enhanced internal controls is coming from the federal level as well
National Program Integrity Working Group
Additional program changes may result
Baker Tilly will present their final report by October 15, including:
An analysis of the programs’ auditing and internal controls strengths and weaknesses;
A review and comparison of similar programs at the state and national levels to identify industry internal controls best practices and existing program models and to conduct a gap analysis;
Program-specific, detailed, and actionable recommendations to implement improvements and to ensure the programs’ effectiveness and efficiency of operations, reliability of financial reporting, compliance with applicable laws and regulation, and oversight of energy vendors, weatherization contractors, and service providers.

10. EAP/WAP Internal Controls (IC) Evaluation
Q&A

11. FFY2013 EAP Local Plan

12. FFY2013 EAP Local Plan 5. Monitoring Local Plan question 2013 Updates
Does the Service Provider have separate evaluations of internal control, such as self-assessments or evaluations of internal procedures and performance?
2013 Updates
5.1 Performance Measures & Quality Assurance is improved
Weekly Application Certification Targets (WACT)

13. FFY2013 EAP Local Plan 5. Monitoring
5.1 Performance Measures & Quality Assurance
5.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Feedback
5.1.2 Self Monitoring and Internal Controls
5.2 Energy Vendor Management
SP plan to train vendors
SP plan to timely monitor vendors
SP plan to ensure accuracy of consumption & payment information

17. FFY2013 EAP Local Plan Local Plan Supplements
Agency Policy Documentation
Additional changes not included in the Local Plan
Acknowledgement and Certification
Agency Approval
DOC Approval

19. FFY2013 EAP Local Plan
Q&A

20. FFY2013 EAP Grant Contract

21. FFY2013 EAP Grant Contract EAP Grant Contract
Address three general areas
Grant administration
Fiscal management
Program performance requirements
FFY13 update on record retention
Current: Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, Subd.5, Grantees keep books/documents for a minimum of three years
FFY13: Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, Subd.5, Grantees keep books/documents for a minimum of six years

22. Grant Contract Checklist
FFY2013 EAP Grant Contract
Grant Contract Checklist
FFY13 EAP Grant Contract
Affirmative Action Certificate
Certification Regarding Lobbying, Debarment …
FFY2013 Local Plan
Conflict of Interest Policy
Supplements
eHEAT Admin Security Agreement
WACT

23. Grant Contract Submission
FFY2013 EAP Grant Contract
Grant Contract Submission
Make sure signatories are available to sign the EAP contract
Return all contract copies with original signatures on time
Signature page of the contract with original signature of the Chair of the Board of Directors or the authorized signatory.
Signature authority from Board of Directors must accompany the grant contract only if person signing the grant contract is not the Chair of the Board of Directors.
The approved Service Provider Local Plan
Signature of Certifications for Affirmative Action & Lobbying

24. FFY13 EAP Local Plan & Contract
Grant Contract and Local Plan Timeline
July 2012 SPs received Local Plan instructions
DOC posted EAP Local Plan template on DOC website
August 24, 2012 Local Plan submissions due by 4:00 pm.
Week of August 27, 2012 DOC reviews Local Plans
SPs may be asked for additional information during review
Early September 2012 DOC approves acceptable Local Plans
By October 1, 2012 DOC executes and distributes contract documents with Local Plan

25. FFY13 EAP Local Plan & Contract
Local Plan Submission Requirements Include
Use Arial Narrow 12 point font for answers
Rename the Word document to include your Service Provider name (Example: for Semcac: “Semcac FFY2013 Local Plan”)
Include your Service Provider name and FFY2013 Local Plan in the subject of the (Example: for Semcac: “Semcac FFY2013 Local Plan”)
Submit FFY2013 Local Plan as an attachment by to
Service Provider receives automated receipt of the Local Plan

26. FFY2013 EAP Grant Contract
Q&A

27. FFY13 Approach

28. FFY13 Approach FFY2013 Service Approach
$500 Primary Heat benefit average
$1,200 maximum Primary Heat benefit
$500 maximum Crisis
Serve non-heat electric emergency
Encourage household payment through A16 (case management) services
Crisis & ERR budget limited to 15.1%
The State will no longer match ROFW donations with federal funds
5% EAP/Wx transfer
Planned FFY2013 Households Served
Process approximately 185,000 applications
Serve approximately 165,000 households

29. FFY13 Approach
Q&A