Audit 332196

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Federal Assistance Listing Number 10.557 Material Weakness – Eligibility Finding 2024-003 Criteria: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: For the WIC program, we were unable to obtain evidence to corroborate the review of the Senior Quality Training Specialist eligibility determinations. Questioned Costs: None Effect: By not having the required documentation to support the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist, the County is unable to support their assertion the cases are properly reviewed by an individual other than the preparer. Cause: County does not have a formal policy for documenting evidence of the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement a policy to ensure the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist is properly documented and retained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.994 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Reporting Finding 2024-006 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.334 the recipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. Condition: During the audit we tested 13 reports and noted the following: a) There were four (4) instances out of 13 reports tested where the submitted reports were unable to be provided, including the date of submission for the reports. b) There were 10 instances out of 13 reports tested where the County was unable to provide evidence the report was reviewed prior to submission. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and underlying support, the County is not able to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure documentation was retained to evidence review and submission of all reports. Recommendation: The County should consider creating a formalized policy to require all submitted reports and underlying data are retained in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Medical Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.778 Material Weakness and Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Eligibility Finding 2024-001 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The County should have adequate documentation for each participant that supports each eligibility determination and the information entered into NCFAST. We noted several errors related to the following compliance criteria: a) Self-attestation wages should be compared to information in NC FAST. b) All countable resources should be confirmed and recalculated and ensure they are computed accurately in NC FAST. c) An OVS inquiry must be completed and agreed to information reported in NC FAST. d) An ex parte review is required every six (6) to twelve (12) months. e) Forced eligibility cases should maintain the proper documentation within NC FAST to support the determination for the required forced eligibility. f) For Aged, Blind, or Disabled cases or MQB programs the Register of Deeds is required to be verified and documented in the case file. g) The caseworker should prepare and submit a DMA-5097 form in the case of incompatible income verification and self-attestation income as described in the Eligibility Review Document. h) For countable earned and unearned income, income conversion and computation was done in accordance with policy manuals and have to agree to amounts in NC FAST. Condition: The following are the results of nonmaterial noncompliance noted for each criteria listed above out of the 124 program participants selected for testing: a) There were four instances where the participants self-attest wages did not agree to the wages entered into NC FAST. b) There were three instances where the countable resources were inaccurate within NC FAST. c) There was one instance where the OVS query was not run at the time of the determination. d) There were two instances where the ex parte review was not completed timely. e) There were two instances where the support for the forced eligibility was not properly maintained in NC FAST. f) There was one instance where the Register of Deeds support was not maintained in NC FAST. g) There were five instances where the income was incompatible between the income verification and selfattestation income but no DMA-5097 was sent. h) There were two instances where countable income was not properly included in NC FAST. Lastly, there were 6 instances out of 60 program participants tested for control testing where the County did not remediate the errors identified within their internal review timely. Context: There were 14 out of 124 unique participants tested with the errors noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Effect: By not having the required documentation in the files or information being incorrectly documented, eligibility cannot be readily substantiated and there is a risk the County could provide funding to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: County oversight when performing reviews over applications. Additionally, the County does not have a formal process in place to ensure issues identified during the review process are appropriately corrected on a consistent and timely basis. Recommendation: Although these issues will occur from time to time considering the volume of case files, the County should review their processes to ensure proper supporting documentation of eligibility is maintained within each case file. Additionally, Mecklenburg County should consider implementing a formal policy for the requirements of having documentation corrected within a specific timeframe once identified. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-through Entity: North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Federal Assistance Listing Number 10.557 Material Weakness – Eligibility Finding 2024-003 Criteria: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Condition: For the WIC program, we were unable to obtain evidence to corroborate the review of the Senior Quality Training Specialist eligibility determinations. Questioned Costs: None Effect: By not having the required documentation to support the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist, the County is unable to support their assertion the cases are properly reviewed by an individual other than the preparer. Cause: County does not have a formal policy for documenting evidence of the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist. Recommendation: We recommend the County implement a policy to ensure the review by the Senior Quality Training Specialist is properly documented and retained. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Treasury Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Procurement Finding 2024-005 – Repeat Finding Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.318 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of services required under a federal or State award. Condition: During the audit we tested 10 contracts and noted the following: a) There was one (1) instance out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to contract execution. b) There were three (3) instances out of 10 contracts tested where the County did not properly follow the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for contracted services. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and rationalization in the files, the County could have improperly contracted with a vendor that was not considered eligible to be paid with grant proceeds. Cause: The County did not ensure all contracts utilized for the grant were contracted and properly documented using the required procurement requirements in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards. Recommendation: The County should consider utilizing the Uniform Grant Guidance procurement standards for all County contracts or ensure new contracts are executed when Federal or State grant funds are identified to be utilized for the contracts. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Program Name: Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Federal Assistance Listing Number: 93.994 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance - Reporting Finding 2024-006 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Per Section 200.303 of the Uniform Grant Guidance, a non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.334 the recipient must retain all Federal award records for three years from the date of submission of their final financial report. Condition: During the audit we tested 13 reports and noted the following: a) There were four (4) instances out of 13 reports tested where the submitted reports were unable to be provided, including the date of submission for the reports. b) There were 10 instances out of 13 reports tested where the County was unable to provide evidence the report was reviewed prior to submission. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: By not having the required documentation and underlying support, the County is not able to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure documentation was retained to evidence review and submission of all reports. Recommendation: The County should consider creating a formalized policy to require all submitted reports and underlying data are retained in accordance with the Uniform Grant Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.