The Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness, the cornerstone of the Anchorage homelessness industrial complex made up of several nonprofits, is not doing a good job with its financial reporting and accountability, according to an independent audit of the group for 2023.
The audit uncovered significant problems with the group’s internal financial and governance controls, raising concerns about its ability to manage funds and maintain accountability as it works to combat homelessness.
The audit identified two primary issues: a material weakness and a significant deficiency in the organization’s internal controls. The material weakness points to a serious flaw that could undermine ACEH’s ability to reliably track and report financial data. According to the findings, this deficiency increases the risk of failing to prevent or correct noncompliance with regulatory or operational requirements, potentially jeopardizing the nonprofit’s credibility and effectiveness.
In addition, the audit highlighted a significant deficiency, less severe than the material weakness but still notable, indicating another gap in financial or governance controls. While this issue is not considered as critical, auditors emphasized that it warranted immediate attention from ACEH’s management to ensure the organization can fulfill its mission without further complications.
These findings were first reported by ProPublica.
ACEH, which serves as the lead agency for the Anchorage Continuum of Care and collaborates with local “stakeholders” to implement the Anchored Home 2023-28 plan, has a goal of making homelessness “rare, brief, and one-time.” But in fact, homelessness has worsened during its existence.
Between 2019 and 2024, annual point-in-time surveys show an increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness. The annual count recorded a 54% rise in Anchorage’s homeless population over five years. In January 2024, the year after the audit, Anchorage’s count identified over 1,700 people experiencing literal homelessness—living in shelters, transitional housing, or unsheltered—compared to a more stable range of around 1,800 to 2,000 statewide in the years prior to 2019.
ACEH receives funding from various sources, including the Municipality of Anchorage, the State of Alaska, and millions of dollars of federal taxpayer-funded grants.
“ACEH received 66% and 44% of its support and revenue from government support for the years ended June 30, 2023 and 2022, respectively. A significant reduction in this support would have a substantial impact on ACEH,” the audit says.
Total government grant revenue for 2023 was $2,637,770.
The material weakness, in particular, could have far-reaching implications. Such deficiencies often signal a need for stronger oversight, improved financial tracking systems, or enhanced staff training. If unaddressed, it could hinder ACEH’s ability to secure future funding or maintain trust among donors and partners.
Among items deficient were accounts payable, property depreciation, and financial reporting. The items were scheduled to be resolved in 2024.
“During our testing of payroll transactions, we noted a substantial number of transactions which we were unable to verify pay rates or a personnel action form indicating approved coding, as required by the Organization’s policies and procedures. The finance department lacked the necessary supervisory capacity to determine and approve personnel information essential to determine the accuracy of payroll expenses. For each of the major programs listed above we attempted to test four payroll transactions and management was unable to provide supporting documentation of pay rates or personnel action forms for nearly all transactions tested,” the audit noted.
More alarming is that the head of the agency is a member of the Anchorage Assembly — Meg Zaletel, who is the Assembly’s vice chair. The Anchorage Assembly has awarded millions of dollars to Zaletel’s group over the past few years.
Dig into the audit at this link.
I am convinced the purpose of a non-profit is to grow its customer base. Meg should be applauded for increasing the homeless population. And who is the moron that wrote the contract between Meg and the City? A good contract would be based on results. And we know her friends in the hive did not write a contract based on results unless those results are more homeless. Alas, it matters nothing at all. Meg could run for mayor in April, and defeat any candidate on Earth who wasn’t a union pawn.
Nice photo.
I cant imagine a nasty thought coming from such a warm caring individual.
There must be an explanation somewhere…?
Follow the money.
Curious if the audit conclusions mentioned other damning conclusions such as:
… Misallocation of Funds: Funds used for purposes other than those intended or authorized.
… Unaccounted Expenditures: Missing documentation or evidence to support expenditures.
… Fraud or Embezzlement: Evidence of intentional misuse of public funds for personal gain.
… Overpayments or Underpayments: Payments made in excess or below the correct amount due to errors or weak controls.
… Unauthorized Transactions: Expenditures or financial activities conducted without proper approval.
… Violation of Statutory Requirements: Failure to adhere to laws governing financial management, procurement, or operations.
… Non-Compliance with Grant or Contract Terms: Not meeting conditions outlined in agreements for federal or state funding.
… Failure to Follow Internal Policies: Disregarding established organizational or governmental procedures.
… Weak Financial Oversight: Lack of effective systems to prevent errors, fraud, or waste.
… Poor Record-Keeping: Incomplete, inaccurate, or disorganized financial or operational records.
… Insufficient Segregation of Duties: One individual handling multiple aspects of a process, increasing the risk of errors or fraud.
… Inadequate Risk Management: Failure to identify or mitigate risks that could affect program or financial outcomes.
… Wasteful Spending: Resources used ineffectively, such as purchasing unnecessary goods or services.
… Program Underperformance: Programs failing to meet objectives or deliver expected outcomes.
… Delays in Implementation: Projects or initiatives not completed on time, leading to cost overruns or reduced impact.
… Duplication of Efforts: Overlapping programs or activities that could be consolidated for efficiency.
… Financial Misstatements: Errors or omissions in financial statements, whether intentional or unintentional.
… Inadequate Performance Reporting: Failure to accurately report program results or outcomes to stakeholders.
… Non-Submission of Required Reports: Missing deadlines or failing to provide mandatory documentation to oversight bodies.
… Non-Competitive Bidding: Contracts awarded without proper competition, violating procurement rules.
… Conflict of Interest: Contracts or purchases benefiting individuals with undisclosed personal interests.
… Poor Contract Management: Inadequate monitoring or enforcement of contract terms, leading to subpar performance or overbilling.
… Ghost Employees: Payments made to non-existent or ineligible employees.
… Time and Attendance Fraud: Employees paid for hours not worked or leave not earned.
… Improper Hiring Practices: Recruitment or promotions not following merit-based or legal guidelines.
… Inadequate Cybersecurity Measures: Systems vulnerable to hacking or data breaches due to outdated protections.
… Data Integrity Issues: Inaccurate or incomplete data affecting decision-making or reporting.
… Unauthorized Access: Lack of controls to prevent improper access to sensitive systems or information.
… Ineffective Program Design: Programs not structured to achieve intended goals.
… Lack of Measurable Outcomes: Inability to demonstrate program impact due to poor metrics or evaluation.
… Beneficiary Issues: Services not reaching the intended population or failing to address their needs.
… Non-Compliance with Environmental Regulations: Improper handling of hazardous materials or failure to meet environmental standards.
… Workplace Safety Issues: Unsafe conditions or practices that endanger employees or the public.
If Anchorage Coalition to Endorse Homelessness can’t keep the books straight, can you imagine what the Marxist Assembly is doing with taxpayers money? They sprinkle it all over the Liberal wishlists for the annual votes.
More alarming is that the head of the agency is a member of the Anchorage Assembly — Meg Zaletel, who is the Assembly’s vice chair. The Anchorage Assembly has awarded millions of dollars to Zaletel’s group over the past few years. QUOTE from the article.
MILLIONS…………
Non-Profit = Non-Government Organization (NGO) = Widespread corruption. Why would anyone be surprised at what’s going on here?
The more taxpayer money the Assembly throws at “homelessness”, they more homeless there are in Anchorage.
This really isn’t complicated….
All NGO non=profits are just money laundering schemes.
Please, everyone, stop calling them “ homeless”. They are Vagrants. Mentally ill, drunks, dope fiends and bums. Yes, they need help, that help should come as responsible adult supervision. Anything less is nothing more than enabling their self destructive behavior. And you, Meg. Get a job.
What are the odds???
A “non-profit” run by a leftist is playing fast and loose with money. You could knock me over with a sledgehammer.
I’m Shocked! Shocked to hear there may be irregularities… Right!
ACEH is USAID in Anchorage. Money laundering at it’s core. The goal of these useless jerks is to maintain a revenue stream, not to end homelessness.
And with all the bonds and tax levies that continue to get voted in, year after year, expect more people in Los Anchorage to be added to the homeless list of clients when people on the verge of insolvency find themselves unable to afford their homes anymore.