Audit 340657

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE- ELIGIBILITY MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include properly reviewed income calculations and household compositions. In accordance with 42 CFR 435.603, household income is required to be calculated based on the sum of the income of every individual in the individual’s household. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to properly determine income and household composition for one applicant. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 1,466,390 benefit payments valued at $548,506,860, we examined 60 ($20,201 value) and determined that one (2%) had inconsistent documentation supporting the eligibility determination in the case file. Upon further review, the applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not have properly calculated income or household composition, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: The caseworker did not correctly enter the income or household composition. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. The County was able to substantiate that the applicant was eligible to receive benefits. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2023-001. Recommendation: Caseworkers should review their eligibility determinations and ensure all information is entered correctly. Calculations should be reviewed for accuracy before approving benefits. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 7 CFR 273, documentation must be maintained to establish a claim against that household and demand repayment. Counties must enter accurate and complete information to ensure claims are properly processed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE- ELIGIBILITY MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include properly reviewed income calculations and household compositions. In accordance with 42 CFR 435.603, household income is required to be calculated based on the sum of the income of every individual in the individual’s household. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to properly determine income and household composition for one applicant. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 1,466,390 benefit payments valued at $548,506,860, we examined 60 ($20,201 value) and determined that one (2%) had inconsistent documentation supporting the eligibility determination in the case file. Upon further review, the applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not have properly calculated income or household composition, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: The caseworker did not correctly enter the income or household composition. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. The County was able to substantiate that the applicant was eligible to receive benefits. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2023-001. Recommendation: Caseworkers should review their eligibility determinations and ensure all information is entered correctly. Calculations should be reviewed for accuracy before approving benefits. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with EP-300 Energy Programs section 300.02 and EP-400 Crisis Intervention Programs section 400.05, documentation must be maintained to support eligibility determinations, including the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form signature page or documentation of telephonic signature. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to obtain the applicant’s signature, including an online or telephonic signature, on one of the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance forms. Upon further review, the applicant was ultimately eligible. Context: Of the 8,120 benefit payments valued at $2,533,825, we examined 60 payment records ($19,830 value) and determined that one casefile (2%) did not include a client’s signature on the NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities form for Public Assistance. The applicant was deemed eligible. Effect: Casefile did not include documentation of a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form, which could allow benefits to be provided to individuals who are not eligible. Cause: Caseworker failed to obtain a signed NC FAST-20009 North Carolina Rights and Responsibilities for Public Assistance form. Questioned Costs: None. The finding represents an internal control issue; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is a modified and repeated finding from the immediate previous audit, 2024-002. Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to ensure caseworkers are aware of documentation requirements. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 7 CFR 273, documentation must be maintained to establish a claim against that household and demand repayment. Counties must enter accurate and complete information to ensure claims are properly processed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure that casefiles include all required documentation. In accordance with 45 CFR 1356.30(f), documentation must be maintained which verifies that safety considerations including a child abuse check of responsible individuals have been performed. This also includes proper use of standardized form 5268. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Nine casefiles were missing form 5268 which verifies a child abuse check of responsible individuals. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Context: We sampled 60 adoption and 13 foster care casefiles and noted the above condition in 9 (12%) of the casefiles tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for casefiles. There is a risk that casefiles may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 5268. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE MATERIAL WEAKNESS Criteria: Per the North Carolina DSS Crosscutting Requirements compliance supplement, counties must acquire adequate case documentation to substantiate the claim entry into the Enterprise Program Integrity (EPI). This information includes but is not limited to the dates of the overpayment period, documentary evidence to substantiate that an overpayment occurred, such as wage stubs or verification from an employer, other income verification and household composition verification, and the budgets used to compute the amount of the overpayment. This also includes proper use of standardized form 1682. Condition: The County Department of Social Services failed to maintain adequate and correct case documentation. Three casefiles were missing form 1682 and one casefile had the incorrect overpayment documented. Context: We sampled 40 claims that were in the EPI system and noted the above condition in 4 (10%) of the claims tested. Effect: The County may not have required supporting documentation for claims entered into the EPI system. There is a risk that claims may not be valid as a result. Cause: Caseworker failed to maintain adequate and correct documentation of form 1682 and of overpayments. Questioned Costs: The finding represents an internal control weakness; therefore, no questioned costs are applicable. Upon further review, the cases were still eligible to report a claim entry into EPI. Recommendation: The County should implement controls to ensure that all required documentation is adequate, correct, and maintained within the case file. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.

NON-MATERIAL NON-COMPLIANCE SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200, management should have an adequate system of internal control procedures in place to ensure proper use of approved mileage rates in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The County requires DSS employees to use the correct approved mileage reimbursement rates when submitting requests for reimbursement. Condition: Upon inspection of reimbursement request forms, employees did not use the correct approved rate for mileage reimbursement. Out of 40 mileage reimbursements tested, we noted 3 reimbursements that occurred in 2024 that were reimbursed at the prior year rate $0.655 instead of $0.67 which resulted in an underpayment of $10.17; and one reimbursement that occurred in 2023 that was reimbursed at the next years’ rate $0.67 instead of $0.655 which resulted in an overpayment of $2.37. Context: While performing testing of internal control over compliance related to the Division of Social Services, we noted the above condition. Effect: Incorrect mileage reimbursement amounts could be distributed to employees. Cause: Lack of proper internal controls over mileage reimbursement requests. Questioned Costs: In accordance with 2CFR 200, auditors are required to report known questioned costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $25,000. Likely questioned costs do not exceed $25,000. Recommendation: The County should implement internal controls to ensure that mileage is reimbursed at the appropriate rates, per County policy. Name of Contact Person: Candice Gobble, DSS Director Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.