PROTEUS, INC.
DES MOINES, IA
* * *
AUDIT REPORT ON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR GRANT NUMBER AC-10750-00-55
21-02-003-03-365
This document is a summary of a printed document. The printed document
may contain charts and photographs which are not reproduced in this
electronic version. If you require the printed version of this document,
contact the Freedom of Information Act Officer, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or call
(202) 693-5116.
This report reflects the findings of the Office of Inspector General at
the time that the audit report was issued. More current information may
be available as a result of the resolution of this audit by the Department
of Labor program agency and the auditee. For further information concerning
the resolution of this report's findings, please contact the program agency.
OIG has started using Acrobat 4.0 to prepare it's latest Audit reports. If
you are experiencing problems downloading some of the larger PDF files, you
may want to download the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader by
clicking the link provided below.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Office of Inspector General (OIG), contracted with Harper, Rains,
Stokes & Knight, P.A., to perform a financial and performance audit of DOL Grant Number
AC-10750-00-55 with Proteus, Inc. (Proteus). Proteus was audited for the period July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2001.
Under the authority of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), DOL's Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) awarded Proteus a grant to provide training and services to eligible migrant
and seasonal farmworkers to strengthen their ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the audit period, Proteus reported costs of $1.16 million for 332 participants. In our draft
report we questioned $233,988 charged to the DOL grant because Proteus provided training and services
to 79 ineligible participants as described below. For his final report, we have accepted documentation
received from Proteus that has reduced the questioned costs to $215,792.
Finding No. 1: Refugees and other ineligible participants were
enrolled in the National Farmworker Jobs Program
We question $233,988 charged to the DOL grant because Proteus provided training and services to 79
ineligible participants. Sixty-nine of these participants were discovered by ETA's Division of
Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP) during a monitoring visit and Proteus terminated these
participants as a result of ETA's report. The remaining 10 ineligible participants were discovered
during our audit in which we reviewed a sample of 30 participant files. The questioned costs consist
of allowance payments, support payments, and related overhead charges.
Many of the participants enrolled in these programs were refugees with unverifiable foreign farmwork,
or participants who either could not show an employer/employee relationship or had not been primarily
employed in farmwork. Proteus' programs should be carefully evaluated to determine if they still fit
the goal of training eligible farmworkers to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
In its response to the draft report, Proteus provided documentation to support the eligibility of the
participant we questioned because of her step-father's self-employment, and noted that 13 of the
participants questioned had not attended ESL; therefore, the costs the auditors prorated for these
participants should be eliminated.
Based on our review of the information provided by Proteus, we have accepted the one individual as
being eligible and reduced the costs we questioned pertaining to the ESL program. Therefore, the
questioned costs are reduced from $233,988 to 215,792.
Finding No 2: Job placements reported to ETA included
participants who were employed prior to and after training in substantially the same
job.
We question six unsubsidized employment placements that Proteus reported in its DOL Program Status
Summary. These six placements involved participants who were identified as being ineligible for the
program in Finding No. 1.
We also question Proteus' practice of reporting participants as placements when the participant
maintained the same employment from the time they enrolled in the program to the time they exited the
program. Three of the six questioned placements fell into this category. Had these participants been
eligible, reporting them as an employment placement would not have been an appropriate outcome.
In its response to the draft report, Proteus said that its practice is to document placements only on
participants that have located substantially different jobs as a result of core, intensive or training
services. Proteus acknowledged that it did make an error in reporting placements on three
participants.
Our recommendation to the Assistant Secretary remains unchanged.
Get Complete Report